Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 23 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plainti~ 

V. 

My Big Coin Pay, Inc., Randall Crater, and Mar

Gillespie, 

Defendants, 

Kimberly Renee Benge, Kimberly Renee Benge 

d/b/a Greyshore Advertisement a/k/a Greyshore 

Advertiset, Barbara Crater Meeks, Erica Crater, 

Greyshore, LLC, Greyshore Technology, LLC, 

Relief Defendants. 

ECFCase 

k 

Case No.....[ ___.) 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT

AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

I. INTRODUCTION 

l. Since at least January 2014 through the present, the company My Big Coin Pay, 

Inc. ("MBCP"), Randall Crater ("Crater"), and Mark Gillespie ("Gillespie") (collectively, 

"Defendants"), operated a virtual currency scheme in which they fraudulently offered the sale of 

· a fully-functioning virtual currency, My Big Coin ("MBC"), a commodity in interstate 

commerce. From at least January 2014 through at least June 2017, Defendants obtained more 

than approximately $6 million from at least twenty-eight customers ("MBC Customers") through 

fraudulent solicitations. 

2. Defendants fraudulently solicited potential and existing MBC Customers 

throughout the United States by making false and misleading claims and omissions about MBC's 

value, usage, and trade status, and that MBC was backed by gold. ln this regard, the MBC 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 23 

website, maintained and operated by Defendants, conveyed to potential and actual MBC 

Customers numerous solicitation materials, MBC trade data, and other materials (I) 

misrepresenting that MBC was actively being traded on several currency exchanges, including 

the MBC Exchange website (https://mybigcoinexchange.com), when in fact it was not; (2) 

misrepresenting in reports the daily trading price, when in fact no price existed because MBC 

was not trading; and (3) misrepresenting that MBC was backed by gold, when in fact it was not. 

In reality, the supposed trading results were illusory, and any payouts of funds to MBC 

customers were derived from funds fraudulently obtained from other MBC Customers in the 

manner ofa Ponzi scheme.. 

3. As MBC Customers began to raise questions about their MBC accounts, 

Defendants attempted to conceal their fraud by providing additional coins to them and falsely 

representing that they had secured a deal with another exchange to trade MBC. Defendants 

encouraged MBC Customers to refrain from redeeming lheir MBC holdin~ until MBC was 

active on this "new" exchange. 

4. DefendanlS misappropriated virtually all of the approximately $6 million they 

solicited from MBC Customers. Defendants used these misappropriated funds to purchase a 

home, antiques, fine a"1jewelry, luxury goods, furniture, interior decorating and other home 

improvement services, travel, and entertainment. As a result, MBC Customers have lost most, if 

not all, of their funds due to Defendants' fraud and misappropriation. 

5. Through this conduct, Defendants were engaged, are engaging, or are about to 

engage in fraudulent acts and practices in violation ofthe Commodity Exchange Act ("Act"), 7 

U.S.C. §§ l-27f(2012), and the Commission's Regulations ("Regulations"), 17 C.F.R. pt. 1-190 

2 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 3 of 23 

(2017), specifically, Section 6(c)(l) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), and Regulation 180.l(a), 

17 C.F.R. § 180.l(a) (2017). 

6. Defendants funneled customer funds or ammged for customers to send their funds 

to the accounts of Kimberly Renee Benge, Kimberly Renee Benge d/b/a Greyshore 

Advertisement a/k/a Greyshore Advertiset, Barbara Crater Meeks, Erica Crater, Greyshore, LLC, 

and Greyshore Technology, LLC ( collectively «Relief Defendants"). The ReliefDefendants 

have no legitimate claim to the customer funds they hold, or they have collected, all ofwhich 

were obtained as a result ofthe Defendants' fraudulent conduct. 

7. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6c ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2012), the 

Commission brings this action to enjoin such acts and practices and compel compliance with the 

Act. In addition, the Commission seeks civil monetary penalties and remedial ancillary relief 

including, but not limited to, trading and registration bans, restitution, disgorgement, rescission, 

pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and 

appropriate. 

8. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to 

engage in the acts and practices aHeged in this Complaint and similar acts and practices, as more 

fully described below. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U .S.C. § 1331 

(2012)·(codifying federal question jurisdiction) Wld 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (2012) (providing that U.S. 

district cowts have original jurisdiction over civil actions commenced by the United States or by 

any agency expressly authorized to sue by Act ofCongress). In addition, Section 6c(a) ofthe 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § l3a-J(a) (2012), provides that district courts have jurisdiction to hear actions 

3 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 4 of 23 

brought by the Commission for injunctive relief or to enforce compliance with the Act whenever 

it shall appear to the Commission that any person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage 

in, an act or practice constituting a violation ofany provision ofthe Act or any rule, regu]ation, 

or order thereunder. 

10. The Commission has anti-fraud authority over the conduct and transactions at 

issue in this case pursuant to Section 6(c)(l) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), and Regulation 

180. l(a), l7C.F.R. § 180.l(a)(2017). 

11. Venue. Venue properly lies with the Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) ofthe Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 13a-l(e) (2012), because Defendants are found in, inhabit, or transact business in the 

District, and because acts and practices in violation ofthe Act occurred, are occurring, or are 

about to occur, within this District. As alleged in this complaint, Defendants fraudulently 

solicited numerous customers in the District ofMassachusetts, receiving in excess of$5 million 

from those customers. 

III. THE PARTIES 

12. PlaintiffCommodity Futures Trading Commission ("Commission" or 

"CFTC") is an independent federal regulatory agency that is charged by Congress with the 

administration and enforcement ofthe Act and the Regulations. The Commission maintains its 

principal office at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20581. 

13. Defendant My Big Coin Pay, Inc. is a 001poration based in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

MBCP was inco1porated on October 9, 2014. MBCP's last known address is 3960 Howard 

Hughes Parkway, Suite 500, Las Vegas, Nevada 89169. MBCP has never been registered with 

the Commission. 

4 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 5 of 23 

14. Defendant Randall Crater is a resident ofEast Hampton, New York. Crater is a 

founder ofMBCP. Crater has never been registered with the Commission. 

15. Defendant Mark Gillespie is a resident ofHartland, Michigan. Gillespie 

solicited MBC Customers on behalfofMBCP and Crater. Gillespie has never been registered 

with the Commission. 

IV. RELIEF DEFENDANTS 

16. Relief Defendant Kimberly Renee Benge ( .. ReliefDefendant Kimberly Benge") 

is a resident ofState Road, North Carolina. Benge is Crater's sister. Benge has never been 

registered with the Commission. 

17. Relief Defendant Kimberly Renee Benge d/b/a Greysbore Advertisement a/k/a 

Greyshore Advertiset ("ReliefDefendant Greyshore Advertisement") maintained its business 

address at 1643 Old Highway 21, State Road, North Carolina and is operated by Benge. It also 

used the address of81 Newtown Lane, Suite 328, East Hampton, New York. It has never been 

registered with the Commission. 

18. ReliefDefendant Barbara Crater Meeks is a resident ofElkin, North Carolina. 

She is Randall Crater's mother. Meeks has never been registered with the Commission. 

19. Relief Defendant Erica Crater is a resident ofEast Hampton, New Yoric. She is 

Crater's wife. Crater has never been registered with the Commission. 

20. Relief Defendant Greyshore, LLC ("Greyshore") is a limited liability company 

based in Longwood, Florida. It was fonned on May 17, 2010. Greyshore's last known address 

is 280 South Ronald Reagan Boulevard, Suite 203, Longwood, Florida but previously it used the 

address of81 Newtown Lane, Suite 328, East Hampton, New York. Crater is the CEO of 

Greyshore. Greyshore has never been registered with the Commission. 

5 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 6 of 23 

21. ReliefDefendant G.-eyshore Technology, LLC (''Greyshore Technology") is a 

limited liability company based in East Hampton, New York. It was operational from at least 

January 2014 through at least June 2017 and its last known address is 81 Newtown Lane, Suite 

328, East Hampton, New York. Crater is the CEO ofGreyshore Technology. Greyshore 

Technology has never been registered with the Commission. 

v. STATUTORY BACKGROUND 

22. Virtual currencies are encompassed in the definition of"commodity" under 

Section la(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(9) (2012). For the purposes ofthis Complaint, a virtual 

currency means a digital representation of value that functions as a medium ofexchange, a unit 

of account, and/or a store ofvalue, but does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. 

Virtual currencies are distinct from "real'' currencies, which are the coin and paper money of the 

United States or another country that are designated as legal tender, circulate, and are 

customarily used and accepted as a medium ofexchange in the oountry ofissuance. 

VI. FACTS 

A. Defendants Made False and Misleading Representations, and 

Omitted Material Facts, To Solicit MDC Customers 

23. From at least January 2014 to present, in an effort to capitalize upon the public's 

heightened awareness of, and interest in purchasing, virtual currencies, Defendants solicited 

potential MBC Customers to purchase MBC, a virtual currency with a similar sounding name to 

a more commonly known virtual currency, "Bitcoin." Defendants also solicited MBC Customers 

to invest in MBCP by purchasing both stock in a company which had merged with MBCP and 

alleged licenses related to the medicaJ marijuana business and marijuana derivative products 

such as Trokie, a marijuana-based lozenge. 

6 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 7 of 23 

24. Defendants solicited potential MBC Customers and, along with the Relief 

Defendants, received and directed deposits, withdrawals, and transfers of MBC Customer funds. 

2S. In their promotion ofMBC, Defendants claimed that "merchants and consumers 

[ could] process transaction with our new digital currency [MBC]" on the MBC website. 

Defendants further claimed that "any person with a valid email account [could] receive my big 

coins (MBC)," and "MBC is quoted, at the current value of the coin that day." Defendants 

provided MBC Customers with access, via the MBC website, to their individual accounts which 

reported their MBC balances, transactions, and the current value ofMBC. 

26. Defendants' solicitations to potential MBC Customers to purchase MBC included 

false and misleading representations and omissions of material facts-in short, lies and deceitabout MBC's active trading status, rising prices, and the currency's merits. 

27. Defendants made these false and misleading representations and omissions of 

material facts to potential MBC Customers from at least Janua[)' 2014 through at least June 2017 

via the MBC website, YouTube videos, press releases, and posting on various social media 

platfonns, such as Facebook and chatroom websites. 

28. For example, Defendants posted a YouTube video in which Defendants claimed 

that MBC was a fully-functioning virtual currency that could be used to buy goods and services, 

and that was actively trading on "several currency exchanges . .. for dollars, euros, and more" 

·and stated that MBC was the only virtual currency backed by gold to give prospective customers 

the illusion that MBC was safe to purchase. The video directed potential MBC Customers to 

visit the MBC website, www.MyBig Coin.com, for more infonnation. The MBC website later 

claimed that MBC could be traded through the MBC Exchange. Further, in the same YouTube 

video, Defendants claimed that MBC could be purchased, sold, traded, donated, and used to 

7 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 8 of 23 

make purchases, and that MBC was "a global currency that lets you send money anywhere, 

anytime in any currency." The YouTube video also contained the representation that MBC had 

partnered with MasterCard with the promise that MBC could be used anywhere MasterCard was 

accepted. These representations were false. The MBC website reiterated the MasterCard 

association. In addition to promoting an alleged agreement with MasterCard on the MBC 

website, the logos of the credit card companies American E){press, Visa, and Discover also 

appeared in order to promote a pretense oflegitimacy. On November 4, 2014, Defendants issued 

the following press release on CISION, which advertises itself as a "PR Newswire" 

(https://www.pmewswire.com/news-releases/mybigcoinpay-incs-co-founder-randall-craterannounces-the-crypto-currency-exchange-companys-agrecment-to-have-its-own-brandedmaster-card-attached-to-its-e-wallet-281455 731.html) which contained a link to other CISION 

MBCP press releases and read in part: 

MyBigCoinPay Inc. 's Co-Founder Randall Crater Announces the 

Crypto-Currency Exchange Company's Agreement to have its own 

Branded Master-Card [sic] a/lached lo its e-Wallet ... 

MyBigCoinPay Inc., a Nevada Corporation and a worldwide 

exchange portal for Crypto-Currency transfers, trades and buy {sic] 

and [sic] sell services announces today that it has reached an 

agreement with TRUCASH aka OCR Strategies Inc, a Canadian 

Corporation, for the implementation ofa customized branded prepaid master card [sic] program. Whereby [sic] cardholders will 

have access to their e-Wallet funds 24/7 enabling them to purchase 

MyBigCoin, the exchanges [sic) branded Crypto-Currency, along 

with buying products, goods and services worldwide in real time. 

These statements were false because at the time ofthe statement and afterwards, MBCP did not 

have such an agreement with TRUCASH. 

29. The MBC website also contained a link to "the MBC Mall," a website which 

advertised that "you can purchase any ofthe products we have using your MBC." Products 

purportedly offered for sale included Apple and Sony electronics. The contact page on the MBC 

8 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 9 of 23 

Mall shows that it shares the same mailing address ofReliefDefendants Greyshore and 

Greyshore Technology, entities operated by Crater. 

30. Furthering the illusion of MBC's value, MBC Customers could monitor their 

purchases and sales ofMBC through their account on the MBC website. MBC Customers could 

also view the purported current price ofMBC on the MBC website and could view or participate 

in MBC trading on the MBC Exchange website. For example, on September 21, 20I 5, the MBC 

Exchange website reported the last exchange trade ofMBC at $410 USO; a high trade at $500 

USO and a low trade at $60 USO. The website also additionally reported the latest trade 

volumes and prices. 

31. These statements by Defendants were false and misleading representations and 

omissions ofmaterial facts. In fact, MBC was not actively traded on any currency or other 

exchange, was not backed by gold, was not associated with MasterCard or any other credit card 

company, and could not be used .. to send money anywhere, anytime in any currency." 

32. Further, while the MBC website reflected that MBC Customers owned a certain 

number ofMBCs, these account statements were false and ·misleading representations and 

omissions ofmaterial facts. For example, MBC Customers could not exercise any ownership 

rights in relation to their MBC because they could not trade their MBC or withdraw funds from 

their individual accowtts. 

33. Defendants' statements about the daily price or value ofMBC were also false and 

misleading and omitted material facts. From at least January 2014 through at least June 2017, 

Defendants arbitrarily changed the "price" or value of MBC to make it appear as though it 

fluctuated in an effort by Defendants to replicate price changes that might be observed in any 

other actively traded commodity. For example, on September 23, 2015, the reported price of 

9 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 10 of 23 

MBC on the MBC website was $389.86 USO and on November 9, 2015, the reported price of 

MBC on the MBC website was $547.34 USO. When one MBC Customer questioned Gillespie 

about the fluctuation in MBC's price, Gillespie admitted that Crater would arbitrarily change the 

price, indicating the price was not based on actual trading. The increasing prices for MBC on the 

website and the MBC Exchange website were illusory and false. 

34. From at least January 2014 through at least June 2017, Defendants echoed the 

false and misleading representations and omissions ofmaterial facts contained on the MBC and 

MBC Exchange websites regarding the rising value or price, usage, and gold-backing ofMBC, 

on social media accounts they controlled. For example, on the MBC Facebook page, Defendants 

solicited potential MBC Customers by touting the rising trading value of MBC in U.S. Dollars 

through statements such as the following false and/or misleading postings related to supposed 

MBC value or price, usage and relationship with MasterCard, and backing by gold: 

A. Value or price 

1. January 27, 2014: "Today current value is $28.87 USO." 

Gillespie posted a comment to this post on February IO, 

2014 at 2:26 p.m. "$32.26 ....and going VERTICAL!!!" 

11. Februlll)' 28, 2014: "Today #MYBIGCOIN (MBC} 

CWTent value is $47.56 USD." 

111. March 15, 2014: "...Current value is $57.99 USD" 

IV. April 19, 2014: " ... Current value is $76.57 USO" 

V. May 21, 2014: "...Current value is $102.13 USO" 

vi. September 7, 2014: " ... Current value is $111.66 USO" 

vii. November 8, 2014: " ... Current value is $121.38 USO" 

B. Usage 

i. March 7, 2014: " .. . Sign up today to receive your My Big Coin 

Visa/MasterCard." 

10 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 11 of 23 

11. September 3, 2015: "The First Crypto-Currency Mastercard easy access 

to your money use at any abn's and anywhere Mastercard is accepted." 

C. Gold Backing 

1. March 6, 2014: "The Wait is Over!! Officially ... My Big Coin has 

Entered into a Contract where All My Big Coins will be Backed 100-/4 by 

Gold. My Big Coin. www.MyBigCoin.com." 

11. March 7, 2014: "The only crypto currency to back your money with 

gold." 

111. August 6, 2015: "The first Crypto Currency to be backed by Gold." 

35. These and similar statements about MBC's value or price, usage, and backing by 

gold were false and misleading representations and omitted material facts. 

36. Defendants also made false and misleading representations and omitted material 

facts to potential and existing MBC Customers from at least January 2014 through at least June 

2017 through Internet chat room posts, with false statements regarding the rising trading price 

such as the following on the Internet chatroom, Raging Bull, http://ragingbull.com: 

February 10, 2014: "my friends and family are all in ·My Big 

Coin'- we all got in around 20.00 - its now at 32.26 . . . this will 

go through the roof- I encourage all to give it a look!" 

This Internet chat room post was made on the same day and quoted the same price that Gillespie 

also posted on lhe MBC Facebook page. 

37. From at least January 2014 through at least June 2017, such Internet chat room 

solicitations touting MBC's supposed rising trading value or price, usage, and gold backing were 

publicly available. 

38. Defendants also made false and misleading representations and omitted material 

facts directly to MBC Customers from at least January 2014 through at least June 2017 in person 

and via email messages. 

11 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 12 of 23 

39. TypicaUy, these false and misleading representations and omissions also related to 

actions which could cause an increase in the trading value ofMBC, how a customer could use 

MBC, and the safety ofpurchasing MBC because it was backed by gold. 

40. for example, in or around March 2016, Gillespie sent an email to a customer who 

was dissatisfied with his MBC purchase that included several material false statements regarding 

MBCP and MBC. Gillespie wrote: 

Our funding (in the hundreds ofmillions) I'm told should hit this 

week...by the end ofthe week MBC[P] will buy up any and all 

coin you want to sell on the Exchange... " 

Things could not possibly be belier-Randall [Crater] is in an 

unnamed South American country since yesterday, at their request, 

striking a deal to use our gold-backed coin to stabilize their 

economy. 

We have signed deal, 50/50 partnership with one ofthe largest 

companies in the world on their phone payment system. 

These statements were false. 

41. Gillespie told anolher MBC customer•'that all good with MBC..• VERY good in 

fact. Each coin is now backed with gold I So, our currency and accounts are backed better than 

the FDIC backs your money in the bankI" These statements were false. 

42. Like Gillespie, fiom at least January 2014 through at least June 2017 Defendant 

Crater also made false representations to an MBC Customer about MBC being backed by 

hundreds ofmillions ofdollars ofgold. 

43. On January 28, 2015, Crater sent an email to the same MBC Customer which read 

" •.. we have 300 million in gold backing us they have nothing show [sic] you how strong we are 

going to be [.]" This statement was false. 

12 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 13 of 23 

44. Defendants made these false and misleading representations and omitted material 

facts to potential as well as existing MBC Customers on the MBC and MBC Exchange websites, 

on Internet social media and chatroom websites, in email communications, and in person, and 

did so knowingly or with reckless disregard for the buth. Over lhe course ofthis scheme, 

Defendants have revised their fraudulent statements on the MBC website. 

B. Defendaats Misappropriated MBC Customers' Funds 

45. From at lest January 2014 through at least June 2017, Defendants received in 

excess ofapproximately S6 million from at least twenty-eight MBC Customers. 

46. From at least January 2014 through at least June 2017, Defendants 

misappropriated almost all ofthese MBC Customers' funds for improper and unauthorized uses, 

such as to wrongfully enrich themselves and lhe Relief Defendants. 

47. From at least January 2014 through at least June 2017, Defendants directed MBC 

Customers to transfer funds into bank accounts conlrolled by or operated for the benefit of 

Defendants and ReliefDefendants. 

48. For instance, Defendants instructed MBC Customers to ttansfer funds by wire or 

through written checks into bank accounts held in the names of Relief Defendants Oreyshore 

Advertisement, Greyshore LLC, Oreyshore Technology, Barbara Crater Meeks, and Defendant 

Gillespie. 

· 49. Upon receipt or very soon after receipt ofMBC Customers' funds, the MBC 

Customer funds were transferred to other accounts controlled by Defendants or Relief Defendant 

Erica Crater, or withdrawn to make purchases for Defendants' or Relief Defendants' own 

financial benefi.L On occasion, MBC Customer funds were transferred illegally to other MBC 

Customers to cover up Defendants' fraud. 

13 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 14 of 23 

SO, For example, MBC Customer funds for the purchase of MBC were transferred to 

a bank account in the name of "Kimberly Renee Bense d/b/a Greyshore Advertisemet a/k/a 

Greyshore Advertiset." On September 12, 2014, Relief Defendant Kimberly Benge withdrew 

funds from this account and purchased a cashier's check made out to "Kimberly Benges 

Greyshore Advertisment" in the amount of Sl,849,370.38. The next business day, September 

15, 2014, this cashier's check was deposited into a bank account held in the name ofGreyshore 

LLC. On September 19, 2014, Defendants and/or Relief Defendants wired $631,523.79 from the 

Greyshore LLC bank account to a real estate settlement company in Florida with the notation 

"Other Home Purchase." On or about September 26, 2014, Relief Defendant Erica Crater 

purchased a home for the price of approximately $645,000 using the funds transferred to the real 

estate settlement company. A similar pattern repeated itself throughout the period ftom at least 

January 2014 through at least June 2017 with MBC customer funds being wired to Crater's or 

Erica Crater•s personal bank accounts &om Relief Defendants' bank accounts or used to make 

purchases in the amount of at least $339,689 at a jewelry store in Southampton, New York; at 

least $209,000 at an Bast Coast based marina; and at least SS 17,719.27 at an auction house that 

specialized in fine art and antiques in Southhampton, New York. Defendants and/or Relief 

Defendants withdrew via ATM tramactions over $561000 of MBC Customer funds ftom the 

Relief Defendant Greyshore Advertisement's bank account, and Relief Defendant Kimberly 

Benge personally withdrew at least $489,000 from this account at bank branch offices. None·of 

the funds obtained &om MBC Customers were used to buy MBC for MBC Customers. 

51. To the extent any MBC customers received any funds from the Defendants, those 

funds in fact consisted of funds that Defendants misappropriated from other MBC Customers, in 

the nature of a Ponzi scheme. 

14 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 15 of 23 

C. Crater Was a Controlling Person of MBCP 

Sl. Crater-was a controlling person of MBCP. Crater was a founder of MBCP and 

the creator/developer of MBC. Crater controlled the content on the MBC, MBC Exchange, and 

the MBC Mall websites, including setting the pwported trading price of MBC. Crater either 

directly or indirectly controlled the operation of the bank accounts to which MBC Customers 

transferred funds under the belief that they were purchasing MBC. 

D. Crater Acted as an Agent for MBCP 

53. Through his solicitation of potential and existing MBC Customers and active 

marketing of MBC including, without limitation, providing infonnation regarding the merits of 

owning MBC to potential and existing MBC Customers and providing existing customers with 

additional MBC after they raised concerns about their inability to trade MBC, Crater acted as an 

agent of MBCP. 

E. Gi1Je1pie Acted as an Agent for MBCP 

54. Through his actions in marketing and soliciting customers, through direct 

communications and posting on social media, and directing MBC Customers to transfer funds 

which they believed were for the purchase of MBC to bank accounts conttolled by Defendants, 

Gillespie acted as an agent of MBCP. 

F. Relief Defendants Received Funds to Which They Have No 

Legitimate Claim 

55. As described above, on multiple occasions, Relief Defendants have received 

MBC Customer funds that were obtained as a result of Defendants• fraudulent conduct. Relief 

Defendants have no legitimate interest in the MBC Customer funds that they obtained or 

received. The funds funneled to the Relief Defendants exceeded $6 million. 

15 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 16 of 23 

VII. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND REGULATIONS 

Count I- Fraud by Deceptive Device or Contrivance 

Violations of Section 6(c)(I) of the Act and 

Regulation 180.l(a) by MBCP, Crater, and Gillespie 

S6. Paragraphs 1 through 55 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 

S7. Section 6(c)(I) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), makes it unlawful for any 

person, directly or indirectly, to: 

use or employ, or attempt to use or employ, in connection with any 

swap, or a contract of sa]e of any commodity in interstate 

commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the roles of any 

registered entity, any manipulative or deceptive device or 

contrivance, in contravention of such roles and regulations as the 

Commission shall promulgate by not later than I year after [July 

21, 20 I 0, the date of enactment of the Dodd.Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act] . . .. 

58. Regulation 180. l(a), 17 C.F.R. § 180.l (a) (2017), provides: 

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in 

connection with any swap, or contract of sale of uny commodity in 

interstate commerce, or contract for future delivery on or subject to 

the roles of any registered entity, to intentionally or recklessly: 

(1) Use or emp)oy, or attempt to use or employ, any manipulative 

device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; 

(2) Make, or attempt to make, any untrue or misleading statement 

of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in 

order to make the statements made not untrue or misleading; 

(3) Engage, or a«empt to engage, in any act, practice, or course of 

business, which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit 

upon any person ... . 

59. Virtual currencies are encompassed in the definition of "commodity" under 

Section 1 a(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(9)(2012). 

60. As described above, Defendants violated Section 6(c)(l) of the Act and 

Regulation 180. l(a) by, among other things, in connection with contracts of sale of commodities 

in interstate commerce, making or attempting to make untrue or misleading statements of 

16 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 17 of 23 

material fact or omitting to state or attempting to omit material facts necessary in order to make 

statements made not untrue or misleading, including without limitation, the following: 

A. Issuing written statements misrepresenting that MBC was actively being 

traded on several currency exchanges, including the MBC Exchange; 

B. Verbally telling MBC Customers that MBC would be listed on a new 

exchange when trading on the MBC Exchange was unsuccessful; 

C. Issuing written statements misrepresenting the daily trading price of MBC; 

0. Issuing written statements misrepresenting that MBC was backed by gold; 

E. Issuing written statements misrepresenting that MBC could be purchased, 

sold, traded, donated, and used to make purchases; 

F. Issuing written statements misrepresenting that MBC was a global 

currency that allowed customers to send money anywhere at any time in 

any currency; 

G. Issuing written statements misrepresenting that MBC could be used 

anywhere that MasterCard was accepted; 

H. Issuing written statements misrepresenting that MBCP was affiliated or 

had a relationship with the credit card companies Visa, MasterCard, 

American Express, and/or Discover; 

I. Issuing written statements misrepresenting that MBC could be used at the 

"MBC Mall" to purchase products; 

J. Issuing written statements mispresenting that customers owned a certain 

number of MBC and that MBC could be sold or customers could withdraw 

their funds; and 

K. Failing to disclose, and omitting, that Defendants were misappropriating 

MBC customer funds. 

. . 

61. As described above, Defendants violated Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and 

Regulation 180. l (a) by, among other things, in connection with contracts of sale of a commodity 

in inter.,tate commerce, soliciting customer., with false and misleading statements about MBC's 

trading activity, usage, value, affiliation with credit card companies, and backing by gold; 

providing MSC Customers with false statements misrepresenting that customers owned a certain 

17 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 18 of 23 

number of MBC and that MBC could be sold or customers could withdraw their funds; and 

misappropriating MBC Customers' funds. 

62. Defendants engaged in the acts and practices described above willfully, 

intentionally, or recklessly. 

63. By this conduct, Defendants violated Section 6(c)(l) of the Act and Regulation 

180. l(a). 

64. The acts, omissions, and failures of Crater described in this Complaint occurred 

within the scope of his agency, employment, or office at MBCP. Accordingly, MBCP is liable 

under Section 2(a)(1)(8) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B) (2012), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 1.2 (2017), as a principal for its agent's acts, omissions, or failures in violation of Section 

6(c)(I) of the Act and Regulation 180.l(a). 

65. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Crater controlled MBCP, directly or 

indirectly, and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, MBCP's 

conduct constituting the violations of MBCP described in this Count. Accordingly, pwsuant lo 

Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) (2012), Crater is liable for MBCP's violations of 

Section 6(c)(l) of the Act and Regulation 180. l(a). 

66. The acts, omissions, and failures of Gillespie described in this Complaint 

occurred within the scope of his agency, employment, or office at MBCP. Accordingly, MBCP 

is liable under Section 2(a)(l)(B) of the Act and Regulation 1.2 as principal for its agent's acts, 

omissions, or failures in violation of Section 6(c)(l) of the Act and Regulation 180.l(a). 

67. Each act of (I) using or employing, or attempting to use or employ, a 

manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) making, or attempting to make, untrue or 

misleading statements of material fact, or omitting to state material facts necessary to make the 

18 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 19 of 23 

statements not unbue or misleading; and (3) engaging, or attempting to engage, in a fraudulent or 

deceitful act, practice, or a course of business, including but not limited to those specifically 

alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and 

Regulation 180.l(a). 

Count 11- Disgorgemeat of Fands from Relief Defendants 

68. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 67 are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference. 

69. Defendants have engaged in a fraudulent invesbnent scheme that defrauded 

Defendants'customers. 

· 70. Relief Defendants have received funds that were obtained as a result of 

Defendants' fraudulent conduct. 

71. Relief Defendants have no legitimate entitlement to, or interen in, the funds 

received from Defendants' fraudulent conduct. 

72. Relief Defendants should be required to disgorge lhe funds they received from 

Defendants' fraudulent conduct, or the value of those funds that Relief Defendants may have 

subsequently transferred to third parties. 

72. By reason of the foregoing, Relief Defendants hold funds in constructive trust for 

the benefit of customers who were victimized by Defendants' fraudulent scheme. 

VID. RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court, as authorized by 

Section 6c of the A~ 7 U.S.C. § 13a-l (2012), and pursuant to its own equitable powers, enter: 

A. An order finding that Defendants violated Section 6(c)(I) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 9(1)(2012), and Regulation 180.l(a), 17 C.F.R. § 180.l(a) (2012); 

19 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 20 of 23 

8. An order of permanent injunction enjoining each Defendant and any other person 

or entity associated with them, including but not limited to affiliates, agents, servants, 

emplo~, assigns, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any 

Defendant, including any succmsor thereof: from: 

L Engaging, directly or indirectly, in conduct in violation of Section 6(c)(l) 

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1)(2012), or Regulation 180.l(a), I 7 C.F.R. 

§ 180.l(a) (2017); 

ii. Trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity ( as that tenn is 

defined in Section la(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40) (2012)); 

iii. Entering into any transactions involving "commodity interestsn (as that 

tenn is defined in Regulation l.3(yy), 17 C. F .R. § 1.3(yy) (2017)), for 

their own personal account(s) or for any account in which Defendants 

have a direct or indirect interest; 

iv. Having any commodity interests traded on Defendants' behalf; 

v. Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other person or 

entity, whether by power of attorney or otherwise, in any account 

involving commodity interests; 

vi. Soliciting, receiving, or accepting any funds from any person for the 

purpose of purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

vii. Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the 

Commission in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring such 

registration or exemption from registration with the Commission, except 

20 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 21 of 23 

as provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2017); 

and/or 

viii. Acting as a principal (as lhat term is defined in Regulation 3.1 (a), 17 

C.F.R. § 3. l(a) (2017)), agent, or any other officer or employee of any 

person (as that term is defined in Section 18(38) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ I a(38) (2012)), registered, exempted from registration, or required to be 

registered with the Commission (except as provided for in Regulation 

4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2017)); 

C. An order directing each Defendant to pay a civil monetary penalty, to be assessed 

by the Court, in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed by Section 6c(d)( 1) of lhe Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 13a-l{d)(l) (2012), as adjusted for inflation pursuant lo the Federal Civil Penalties 

Inflation Adjusbnent Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat 584 (2015), title 

VII, Section 701, see Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2017), for each violation of the Act 

and Regulations, as described herein; 

D. An order directing Defendants, as well as any su~ lhereof, to disgorge, 

pursuant to such procedure as the Court may order, all benefits received including, but not 

limited to, trading profits, revenues, salaries, commissions, fees, or loans derived directly or 

indirectly from acts or practices which constitute violations or the Act and Regulations, as 

described herein, and pre- and post-judgment interest thereon from lhe date of such violations; 

E. An order directing Defendants, as well as any successors thereor, to make full 

restitution, pursuant to such procedure as lhe Court may order, to every customer and investor 

whose funds any Defendant received, or caused another person or entity to receive, as a result of 

21 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 22 of 23 

the acts and practi~ constituting violations of the Act and Regulations. as described herein, and 

pre- and post-judgment interest thereon fi'om the date of such violations; 

F. An order directing Defendants, as well as any successors thereof, to rescind, 

pursuant to such procedure as the Court may order, all contracts and agreements, whether 

express or implied, entered into between, with, or among Defendants and any customer or 

investor whose funds were received by Defendants as a result of the acts and practices which 

constituted violations or the Act and the Regulations, as described herein; 

G. An order directing that Defendants, and any successors thereof, make an 

accounling to the Court of all of their assets and liabilities, together with all funds they received 

from and paid to investors and other persons in connection with commodity transactions and all 

disbursements fur any purpose whatsoever of funds received from commodity ttansactions, 

including salari~ commissions, interest, fees, loans, and other disbursement or money or 

property ohny kind ftom at least January 2014 to the date of such accounting; 

H. An order requiring Defendants and any successors thereorto pay costs and rees as 

permitted by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(a)(2) (2012); 

I. An order requiring Relier Defendants, as well as any of their su~rs or 

assigns, to disgorge to any officer appointed or directed by the Court, all ill-gotten gains and 

other benefits received from Defendants, including, but not limited to, salaries, commissions, 

loans, fees, revenues and trading profits derived, directly or indirectly, ftom Derendaots as a 

result of Defendants' acts or practi~ that constitute violations of the Act and the Regulations, 

including post-judgment interest; and 

J. An o.rder providing such other and further relief as the Court deems proper . 

• • • 

22 
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 1 Filed 01/16/18 Page 23 of 23 

Dated: January 16, 2018 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COM~~ 

By: -~____;:;...- "---'~ ----

Traci L. Rodriguez 

C'hiefTrial Attorney 

tnidrigucz(alcllc.gov 

Jonah E. McCarthy 

Trial Attorney 

jmccarthy(.aJdk.gov 

John Einstrnan 

Chief Trial Attorney 

jci nslman(alc lk. gov 

Paul G. Hayc1.:k 

Deputy Director (Mass. Bar. No.554815) 

phayeck@ctk.gov 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division or Enli.1rccmcnt 

1155 2 I st Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Phone: (202) 418-5980 

r-ax: (202) 418-5428 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

23