Leibowitz et al. v. iFinex et al., case 1:19-cv-09236, U.S. District Court docket, S.D.N.Y. [PDF]

There is a passage in Hunter S. Thompson’s Concern & Loathing on the Marketing campaign Path the place Thompson describes then-congressional candidate (and later U.S. President) Lyndon Johnson utilizing a tactic Thompson known as “one of many oldest and handiest methods in politics” to deep-six a competitor in a detailed race.
“The race was shut and Johnson was getting nervous,” Thompson wrote, so Johnson “advised his marketing campaign supervisor to start out a large rumor marketing campaign about his opponent’s life-long behavior of having fun with carnal data of his personal barnyard sows.”
“‘Christ, we won’t get away calling him a pig-fucker,’ the marketing campaign supervisor protested. ‘No person’s going to consider a factor like that.'”
“‘I do know,’ Johnson replied. ‘However let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.'”
I used to be reminded of this passage once I learn the filings in Leibowitz et al. v. IFinex Inc., et al., the brand new case in opposition to Bitfinex, Tether, and others filed by Roche Freedman LLP which alleges, amongst different issues, that Bitfinex has engaged in large market manipulation and was primarily chargeable for the cryptocurrency bubble. This isn’t, thoughts you, as a result of I feel that the plaintiffs’ claims are (or will not be) meritorious; one should be cautious, on the early phases of any litigation, to not arrive at untimely conclusions of the subject material primarily based on one’s personal biases, conjecture or rumor.
Quite, it strikes me that this tactic – make the sonofabitch deny it – is, for the needs of cryptocurrency observers, merchants, and others, the one related facet of this litigation, at an early stage, which is actionable, by which I imply an information level round which one could make plans, measure dangers, and direct one’s consideration to future developments.

The claims made by the plaintiffs are spectacular. The plaintiffs allege illegal market manipulation, principal-agent legal responsibility for market manipulation, aiding and abetting market manipulation, illegal competitors opposite to the Sherman Act, racketeering constituted by, amongst different issues, working an unlicensed cash transmitting enterprise, cash laundering, and financial institution and wire fraud. Additionally named as co-defendants are Bitfinex senior executives and entities and individuals implicated within the Division of Justice investigation into Crypto Capital Corp, an alleged worldwide cash laundering scheme which seems to have been really immense in measurement.

Whether or not these claims are true or not is a matter for a New York jury to resolve. What issues from our perspective, right here and now, is (a) whether or not the claims are pleaded properly sufficient to outlive a 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a declare (as this case was filed in federal courtroom) and (b) how disclosures made on this case will make clear Bitfinex/Tether’s operations, and different investigations of these operations, as the invention course of progresses.

Now that the grievance has been filed, assuming it is going to be correctly served on all defendants, the following step on this litigation is for Bitfinex et al. to both file a solution or instantly file a movement to dismiss. Particularly, we should always search for Bitfinex et al. to problem these pleadings beneath FRCP Rule 12(b)(6), failure to state a declare upon which reduction may be granted, as “a plaintiff’s obligation to supply the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to reduction’ requires greater than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the weather of a explanation for motion is not going to do.'” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). In different phrases, you gotta present some factual specificity.  

Maybe anticipating this, the allegations set out within the (95-page) grievance are given along with an unusually thorough factual background, they usually inform the story of your entire 2017-18 cryptocurrency bubble and collapse via the lens of a keen-eyed detective who must get the courtroom from zero to professional on all issues cryptocurrency in a matter of pages. That is performed expertly. After setting out a high-level, attention-grabbing abstract that explains that “Tether’s mass issuance of USDT created the biggest bubble in human historical past” and that “[i]n a brash show of lawlessness, Tether and Bitfinex proceed to defraud the market,” the grievance particulars Bitfinex’s operations and construction, Tether, and the historical past of Tether’s representations that it’s continuously backed by U.S. {dollars}.

The grievance then digs into historic Bitcoin historical past to clarify how the cryptocurrency markets are uniquely vulnerable to manipulation “[underscoring how control over an exchange and the opportunity to make trades with non-existent money allowed a single individual to dramatically influence cryptocurrency prices,” before embarking on a detailed treatment of how “Bitfinex and Tether [allegedly] leveraged USDT and their management of the Bitfinex alternate to inflate one of many largest bubbles in historical past.

The grievance continues by exploring Bitfinex/Tether’s points with entry to the banking system, mentioning that whereas “entry to the U.S. monetary system was an integral part” of the scheme, “typical banks started shutting Tether and Bitfinex accounts down for cash laundering and different compliance points and “Tether and Bitfinex [allegedly] grew to become much more enmeshed with Crypto Capital,” a agency which has been shut down by the U.S. Division of Justice, and allegedly started “a sophisticated shell recreation of cash laundering” although “[s]tatements made by Bitfinex and Tether in that lawsuit underscore simply how important U.S. correspondent entry was to their operations, and the way shedding it ought to have stopped their skill to function and problem USDT.”

“Bitfinex and Tether had been so determined to entry the U.S. monetary system and U.S. {dollars},” the plaintiffs allege, “that they had been directing funds to Crypto Capital regardless of its clear connection to cash laundering, account seizures, and an lack of ability to maneuver funds out.” Regardless of these banking points, the plaintiffs additional allege that “[i]n the brief span of lower than one month after Bitfinex and Tether closed the door to potential new market entrants, Tether issued greater than 1 billion new USDT, all of which was alleged to be backed by U.S. {dollars} in financial institution accounts the Tether refused to reveal or audit.”

The grievance continues by offering the Court docket with discover of the continued investigation into Bitfinex’s operations by the Lawyer Basic of the State of New York, in relation to which the plaintiffs additional allege that disclosures arising in that investigation, “[I]f had been was (sic) any doubt earlier than, it is now completely clear that Tether now not has money reserves to again USDT at a 1:1 ratio.”

Because of the information laid out, the plaintiffs allege that Bitfinex is civilly liable to them for losses suffered within the cryptocurrency markets on account of Bitfinex’s “Financial institution Fraud[,] Cash Laundering[,] Financial Transactions Derived from Specified Illegal Actions[,] Working an Unlicensed Cash Transmitting Enterprise[,] and Wire Fraud[.]”

So what will we take away from this? To start out, it’s totally doable that these allegations are unfaithful and Bitfinex and co. are veritable paragons of compliance and ethical advantage. Within the different, it is doable that each phrase of the grievance is true.

We simply do not know.

What we do know is that the Bitfinex operation is beneath investigation from a number of angles and this new one is yet one more straw on the proverbial camel’s again. From my overview of the pleadings, it appears to me that the plaintiffs’ claims are backed by a ample factual foundation that they’ll survive a 12(b)(6) movement to dismiss.

Being a civil case, protections Bitfinex may be capable of depend on in different contexts, such because the Fourth Modification in any prison motion, arguing that the Martin Act would not confer jurisdiction over Bitfinex’s actions, or arguing that an administrative subpoena served on it by the New York Lawyer Basic is overbroad, will not apply right here. Discovery has the potential to be broader and deeper than Bitfinex has proven, up to now, that it’s snug with. The consequence of defaulting may very well be financially catastrophic. The burden of proof is decrease, too, than it will be with a prison case (steadiness of possibilities moderately than past an affordable doubt).

Put one other method, it is a very completely different ball recreation than what Bitfinex et al. have been taking part in up to now. We could count on Bitfinex et al. to combat the case. However the case places Bitfinex et al. on the spot: they should have some foundation to disclaim the factual allegations and the plaintiffs want solely show, on a preponderance of the proof, that their allegations are true. The invention course of will go some method to revealing whether or not rumors of manipulation, cash laundering and fraud are true, and the short-term way forward for the cryptocurrency markets could also be vastly affected by the end result of the train, and of this litigation extra typically. 
The factor for everybody to do is watch this case, very carefully. 

Supply hyperlink