Crypto: Gemini and the CFTC want to turn the page, the judge refuses
Justice maintains the obligations imposed on the crypto platform despite the regulator's change of position.
Quick Look
- Judge Alvin Hellerstein refused to overturn a January 2025 ruling imposing a $5 million fine on Gemini.
- Despite a joint request from the platform and the CFTC, the court maintains the injunctions against misleading statements.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
The CFTC had accused Gemini of misleading statements in 2022 regarding Bitcoin futures contracts. An amicable agreement was reached in January 2025 before being contested by the parties in 2026.
An agreement between the parties is not enough to erase a judgment. On October 15, federal judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected the joint request by Gemini and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to reverse their January 2025 legal agreement. This imposed a penalty of $5 million, already paid, as well as a permanent injunction against false or misleading statements to the regulator.
The case begins in June 2022. The CFTC accuses Gemini of providing false or misleading information when reviewing a proposed Bitcoin futures contract. The disclosures included trade financing, self-trading protections, pricing discounts and trading volumes.
On January 6, 2025, the court approved an agreement putting an end to the litigation, three weeks before the trial. Gemini accepts the financial penalty and ongoing restrictions, without admitting or denying the accusations.
However, the CFTC then re-examines the case. She claims that the complaint should not have been filed and denounces certain methods used during the investigation and negotiations. In May 2026, it therefore joined forces with Gemini to request the lifting of the remaining provisions of the judgment. Both parties explicitly exclude reimbursement of the fine.
For Alvin Hellerstein, the arguments presented do not meet the conditions of Federal Rule 60(b), which governs the questioning of final judgments.
First, the documents obtained after the agreement concern previous facts. Their late discovery does not demonstrate, in this case, a change of circumstances justifying the annulment. Next, a new prosecution policy does not constitute a change in applicable law.
Finally, the judge rejects the idea of involuntary consent. Gemini had lawyers, fought the charges for nearly three years, and chose to compromise as trial approached.
Open Questions
- What are the next compliance steps for Gemini?







