Skip to main content
BitCurrent

Crypto markets, protocols and policy

Judge denies Gemini, CFTC bid to undo $5 million settlement

A Manhattan judge refused to erase Gemini’s $5 million CFTC consent order, finding the agency’s changed view and Gemini’s pressure claim insufficient.

BitCurrent Newsroom2 min read

Judge denies Gemini, CFTC bid to undo $5 million settlement

A January 2025 consent order settled the CFTC’s case over Gemini’s proposed bitcoin futures contract; on Oct. 15, a Manhattan judge denied the exchange and agency’s joint bid to undo it, The Block reported. The ruling leaves the penalty and the order’s permanent injunction in place.

  • 2022: The CFTC filed its lawsuit against Gemini.
  • January 2025: The parties entered the consent order.
  • $5 million: The penalty Gemini paid.

Why did the judge reject the joint motion?

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the parties had not shown grounds to reopen the judgment. In the court’s order, he said the CFTC’s current view that the case should not have been brought did not require vacating it.

The agency’s motion cited a review that questioned the evidence and the way the investigation was handled. Hellerstein found those concerns were about facts available before the settlement, not significant changes that arose afterward.

What did Gemini argue about its settlement?

Gemini said it settled under regulatory pressure. The judge said that did not establish its consent was involuntary: the company had litigated for about three years and made a calculated decision to settle shortly before trial.

The CFTC and Gemini jointly filed their motion on May 28, 2026. They argued the agency would not have filed the case under its current enforcement priorities. Gemini had agreed that the $5 million would not be refunded if the order were vacated.

What remains in effect?

The denial leaves the January 2025 consent order standing, including its permanent injunction against Gemini making false or misleading statements or omissions to the CFTC. The agency’s changed assessment did not persuade the court to lift that forward-looking restriction.

The ruling resolves the joint request to vacate the order. The materials reviewed do not establish whether either party will pursue a further challenge.

Source material