1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HDR Global Trading Limited, 100x Holdings 

Limited, ABS Global Trading Limited, Shine 

Effort Inc Limited, HDR Global Services 

(Bermuda) Limited, Arthur Hayes, Ben Peter 

Delo, and Samuel Reed 

Defendants.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CIVIL ACTION NO: 20-cv-8132 

Hon.____________________ 

Jury Trial Demanded 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND 

CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS 

 Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”), an 

independent federal agency, for its Complaint against Defendants HDR Global Trading Limited 

(“HDR”), 100x Holdings Limited (“100x”), ABS Global Trading Limited (“ABS”), Shine Effort 

Inc Limited (“Shine”), and HDR Global Services (Bermuda) Limited (“HDR Services”), all 

doing business as “BitMEX,” as well as BitMEX’s co-founders Arthur Hayes (“Hayes”), 

Benjamin Delo (“Delo”), and Samuel Reed (“Reed”) (collectively, “Defendants” or “BitMEX”), 

alleges as follows:

I. SUMMARY 

1. BitMEX touts itself as the world’s largest cryptocurrency derivatives platform in 

the world with billions of dollars’ worth of trading each day. Much of this trading volume and 

its profitability derives from its extensive access to United States markets and customers. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 40
2

Nevertheless, BitMEX has never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity and has not 

complied with the laws and regulations that are essential to the integrity and vitality of the U.S. 

markets, like know-your-customer procedures to prevent money laundering, or procedures 

designed to detect and prevent manipulative trading and other illicit activities. Instead, BitMEX 

has profited while illegally offering leveraged retail commodity transactions, futures, options and 

swaps; operating as an unregistered futures commission merchant (“FCM”); and operating a 

facility for the trading of swaps without being registered as a swap execution facility (“SEF”) or 

as a designated contract market (“DCM”). Therefore, the CFTC brings this action against 

Defendants, the owners and operators of the BitMEX virtual currency derivatives trading 

platform, to enjoin their ongoing illegal offering of commodity derivatives to U.S. persons, their 

acceptance of funds to margin derivatives transactions from individuals and entities in the U.S., 

and their operation of a derivatives trading platform in the U.S. in violation of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (“Act” or “CEA”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26 (2018), and the CFTC Regulations 

(“Regulations”), 17 C.F.R. pts. 1-190 (2019). 

2. Beginning no later than November 2014 and continuing to the present (the 

“Relevant Period”), Defendants have offered commodity futures, options, and swaps on digital 

assets, including bitcoin, ether, and litecoin, to persons in the United States, from offices in the 

United States, through the website www.bitmex.com and a mobile application, without 

registering as an FCM or being designated or registered as a contract market (a DCM) by the 

Commission. Defendants also have operated a facility for the trading or processing of swaps 

without being registered as a DCM or a SEF. 

3. During the Relevant Period, BitMEX has conducted trillions of dollars in digital 

asset derivatives transactions and earned fees worth more than $1 billion from transactions on its 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 2 of 40
3

platform. BitMEX operated its trading platform in large part from the United States, and 

engaged in transactions with thousands of U.S. persons. BitMEX accepted bitcoin deposits 

worth more than $11 billion from at least 85,000 user accounts with a U.S. nexus. 

4. Throughout the Relevant Period, and through the operation of the BitMEX 

platform, Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, core provisions of the CEA and 

Regulations, including: 

i. offering, entering into, confirming the execution of, or otherwise dealing in, 

off-exchange commodity futures transactions, in violation of Section 4(a) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a) (2018), or, alternatively, Section 4(b), 7 U.S.C. § 4(b) 

and Regulation 48.3, 17 C.F.R. § 48.3 (2019); 

ii. offering, entering into, confirming the execution of, or transacting in offexchange transactions in commodity options, in violation of Section 4c(b) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2018), and Regulation 32.2, 17 C.F.R. § 32.2 (2019); 

iii. acting as an unregistered FCM, in violation of Section 4d of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6d (2018); 

iv. operating a facility for the trading or processing of swaps without being 

registered as a SEF or as a DCM, in violation of Section 5h(a)(1) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 7b-3(1) (2018), and Regulation 37.3(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 37.3(a)(1) 

(2019); 

v. failing to supervise, in violation of Regulation 166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2019); 

and 

vi. failing to comply with applicable provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act, in 

violation of Regulation 42.2, 17 C.F.R. § 42.2 (2019). 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 3 of 40
4

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

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

fully described below. 

6. Accordingly, the CFTC brings this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-l (2018), to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices and to compel their 

compliance with the Act. In addition, the CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties and remedial 

ancillary relief, including, but not limited to, trading and registration bans, disgorgement, 

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

necessary and appropriate. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2018) 

(federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (2018) (district courts have original 

jurisdiction over civil actions commenced by the United States or by any agency expressly 

authorized to sue by Act of Congress). Section 6c of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a) (2018), 

authorizes the CFTC to seek injunctive relief against any person whenever it shall appear to the 

CFTC that such person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice 

constituting a violation of any provision of the CEA or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder. 

8. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the CEA, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e) (2018), because Defendants transacted business in the Southern District of 

New York, and Defendants engaged in acts and practices in violation of the CEA and 

Regulations within this District. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 4 of 40
5

III. PARTIES 

A. The CFTC 

9. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is the independent federal 

regulatory agency charged by Congress with the administration and enforcement of the 

Commodity Exchange Act and Regulations promulgated thereunder. 

B. Defendants 

10. HDR Global Trading Limited was incorporated in the Seychelles in 2014 as a 

Seychelles International Business Company. Throughout the Relevant Period, HDR has owned 

and operated the BitMEX trading platform. Despite being incorporated in the Seychelles, HDR 

does not have, and never has had, any operations or employees in the Seychelles. HDR operates, 

or has operated during the Relevant Period, out of various locations and offices throughout the 

world, including in New York, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Hong Kong, Singapore, and 

Bermuda. “HDR” derives from the first letter of the last names of Hayes, Delo, and Reed, who 

are the three primary ultimate owners of HDR and its various subsidiaries, each holding 

approximately a one-third ownership interest in HDR. 

11. 100x Holdings Limited is a holding company recently incorporated by Hayes, 

Delo, and Reed in Bermuda. In a July 15, 2020, blog post on the BitMEX website, Hayes 

“introduced” 100x and represented that “100x will become the new holding structure for HDR 

Global Trading and all our other assets, including the BitMEX platform.” 

12. ABS Global Trading Limited is a Delaware limited liability company 

incorporated in 2017 through which BitMEX conducts some operations in the United States. It 

is a subsidiary of HDR and 100x, and it is ultimately owned and controlled by Hayes, Delo, and 

Reed. “ABS” derives from the first letters of the first names of Hayes, Delo, and Reed: Arthur, 

Ben and Sam. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 5 of 40
6

13. Shine Effort Inc Limited is a Hong Kong corporation incorporated in 2014, and 

a subsidiary of HDR and 100x. Shine is the corporate entity through which BitMEX conducts 

proprietary trading on its own BitMEX platform, as well as proprietary trading with other market 

participants on exchanges and over the counter throughout the world. Shine is controlled by 

Hayes, Delo, and Reed. 

14. HDR Global Services (Bermuda) Limited is a Bermudian entity incorporated in 

2018 that employs certain personnel performing duties for BitMEX. 

15. HDR, 100x, ABS, Shine, and HDR Services act as a single, integrated common 

enterprise. They share common office space, employees and operational resources. They 

advertise on a single website that does not distinguish between entities. They share common 

directors. They share common ownership. They share common legal and compliance resources. 

They share operating expenses, and report financial activities in consolidated financial 

statements. BitMEX employees and executives refer to a BitMEX enterprise as opposed to 

distinguishing between legal entities. Employees of the various entities have “bitmex.com” 

email addresses. These entities operate as an integrated, common enterprise, and are described 

together in this complaint as “BitMEX.” 

16. Arthur Hayes is a co-founder and co-owner of BitMEX, and describes himself as 

Chief Executive Officer of BitMEX. He is a U.S. citizen who currently resides in Hong Kong. 

Hayes owns property in the U.S., and files U.S. income tax returns. During the Relevant Period, 

Hayes held his ownership interest in the BitMEX entities through a Delaware limited liability 

company that maintains bank accounts at financial institutions in the U.S. and owns property in 

the U.S. Hayes also owns and operates an entity named Headline Asia, through which he 

conducts transactions with and on the BitMEX platform, and with other cryptocurrency 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 6 of 40
7

exchanges and over-the-counter trading partners. He has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity. 

17. Ben Peter Delo is a co-founder and co-owner of BitMEX, and during the 

Relevant Period he has been the Chief Operating Officer of BitMEX. He is a U.K. citizen and, 

on information and belief, currently resides in Hong Kong. He has never been registered with 

the Commission in any capacity. 

18. Samuel Reed is a co-founder and co-owner of BitMEX, and describes himself as 

Chief Technology Officer of BitMEX. He is a U.S. citizen and has resided in Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin and Boston, Massachusetts during the Relevant Period. During the Relevant Period, 

Reed has held his ownership interest in the BitMEX entities through a Wisconsin limited liability 

company that maintains bank accounts at banks in the United States, and owns property in the 

U.S. Reed has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

19. Hayes, Delo, and Reed together control the operations of the BitMEX enterprise. 

IV. STATUTORY BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

20. The purpose of the CEA is to “serve the public interests . . . through a system of 

effective self-regulation of trading facilities, clearing systems, market participants and market 

professionals under the oversight of the Commission,” as well as “to deter and prevent price 

manipulation or any other disruptions to market integrity; to ensure the financial integrity of all 

transactions subject to [the] Act and the avoidance of systemic risk; to protect all market 

participants from fraudulent or other abusive sales practices and misuses of customer assets; and 

to promote responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of trade, other markets and 

market participants.” Section 3 of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 5 (2018). 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 7 of 40
8

21. Derivatives are financial instruments such as futures, options or swaps that derive 

their value from something else, like a benchmark or a physical commodity. The CEA requires 

that, subject to certain exemptions, commodity derivative transactions must be conducted on 

exchanges designated by, or registered with, the CFTC. For example, trading of commodity 

futures contracts must be conducted on a board of trade designated by the CFTC as a contract 

market or a registered foreign board of trade, Section 4 of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6 (2018), and 

Regulation 48.3, 17 C.F.R. § 48.3 (2019); no person may operate a facility for the trading or 

processing of swaps unless the facility is registered as a swap execution facility or as a 

designated contract market, 5h(a)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7b-3(a) (2018), and Regulation 37.3, 

17 C.F.R. § 37.3 (2019); commodity options must likewise be conducted on a board of trade 

designated as a contract market, Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2018), and Regulation 

32.2, 17 C.F.R. § 32.2 (2019). 

22. A cryptocurrency or virtual currency is a type of digital asset defined here as a 

digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or 

a store of value, but does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. 

23. Bitcoin, ether, litecoin, and other virtual currencies are distinct from “real” or 

“fiat” 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 

of exchange in the country of issuance. Digital assets, such as bitcoin, ether, and litecoin are 

“commodities” as defined under Section 1a(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9) (2018). 

24. In recent years, as digital asset and virtual currency markets have evolved, the 

CFTC has approved the offer of futures contracts on virtual currencies by boards of trade 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 8 of 40
9

registered with the CFTC such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Chicago Board Options 

Exchange. 

25. With limited exceptions, Section 5h(a) of the Act,7 U.S.C. § 7b-3 (2018), and 

Regulation 37.3, 17 C.F.R. § 37.3 (2019), make it illegal for a person to operate a facility for the 

trading or processing of swaps unless the facility is registered as a designated contract market or 

a swap execution facility with the CFTC. 

26. Section 1a(47)(A)(iii) and (vi) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A)(iii), (vi) (2018), 

broadly defines “swap” to include “any agreement, contract, or transaction”— 

(iii) [T]hat provides on an executory basis for the exchange, on a fixed or 

contingent basis, of 1 or more payments based on the value or level of 1 or more 

interest or other rates, currencies, commodities, securities, instruments of 

indebtedness, indices, quantitative measures, or other financial or economic 

interest or property of any kind, or any interest therein or based on the value 

thereof, and that transfers, as between the parties to the transaction, in whole or in 

part, the financial risk associated with a future change in any such value or level 

without also conveying a current or future direct or indirect ownership interest in 

an asset (including any enterprise or investment pool) or liability that incorporates 

the financial risk so transferred, including any agreement, contract or transaction 

commonly known as . . . (I) an interest rate swap; . . . (VII) a currency 

swap; . . . (XXII) a commodity swap . . . [or] 

(vi) that is any combination or permutation of, or option on, any agreement, 

contract, or transaction described in any of [these clauses]. 

27. The provisions of the Act and Regulations that apply to DCMs and SEFs, the 

facilities where the trading of commodity derivatives typically occurs, establish important 

protections for United States derivatives markets and market participants. For example, DCMs 

and SEFs must conform to core principles that are designed to achieve the prevention of market 

abuse, Sections 5(d)(12)(a) and 5h(f)(2)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 7(d)(12)(a), 7b-3(f)(2)(B) 

(2018); ensure their financial stability, Sections 5(d)(21) and 5h(f)(13) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 7(d)(21), 7b-3(f)(13) (2018); protect their information security, Regulations 38.1051(a)(2) 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 9 of 40
10

and 37.1401(a)(2), 17 C.F.R. §§ 38.1051(a)(2), 37.1401(a)(2) (2019); and safeguard their 

systems in the event of a disaster, Regulations 38.1051(a)(3) and 37.1401(a)(3), 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 38.1051(a)(3), 37.1401(a)(3) (2019). Further, DCMs and SEFS must ensure that the contracts 

they list for trading are “not readily susceptible to manipulation,” Sections 5(d)(3) and 5h(f)(3) 

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 7(d)(3), 7b-3(f)(3) (2018); DCMs must “prevent market disruption,” 

Section 5(d)(4) of the Act,7 U.S.C. § 7(d)(4) (2018), and SEFs must monitor trading “to prevent 

manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions,” Section 5h(f)(4)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7b3(f)(4)(B) (2018); DCMs and SEFs must impose position limits designed to reduce the potential 

threat of market manipulation or congestion, Sections 5(d)(5) and 5h(f)(6) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 7(d)(5), 7b-3 (f)(6) (2018); DCMs and SEFs must establish and enforce rules to minimize 

conflicts of interest, Sections 5(d)(16) and 5h(f)(12) of the Act,7 U.S.C. §§ 7(d)(16), 7b-3(f)(12) 

(2018); and DCMs and SEFs must maintain and retain important records and provide them to the 

Commission, Sections 5(d)(18) and 5h(f)(10) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 7(d)(18), 7b-3(f)(10) 

(2018). 

28. An FCM is an individual, association, partnership, corporation, or trust that is (i) 

engaged in soliciting or in accepting orders for regulated transactions including futures, swaps, 

commodity options, or retail commodity transactions, or (ii) acts as a counterparty to retail 

commodity transactions; and which, in connection with these activities, “accepts any money, 

securities, or property (or extends credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure any 

trades or contracts that result or may result therefrom.” Section la(28)(A) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ la(28)(A) (2018). 

29. Retail commodity transactions are transactions that are entered into with, or 

offered to, non-eligible contract participants “on a leveraged or margined basis, or financed by 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 10 of 40
11

the offeror, the counterparty, or a person acting in concert with the offeror or counterparty on a 

similar basis.” Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(D) (2018). Retail commodity 

transactions are subject to Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6(a) (2018), “as if” they are a 

contract of sale of a commodity for future deliver, and therefore must be executed on a regulated 

exchange. 

30. An eligible contract participant (“ECP”) is, in general, an individual who has 

amounts invested on a discretionary basis, the aggregate of which is in excess of $10 million, or 

$5 million if the individual enters into the transaction “in order to manage the risk associated 

with an asset owned or liability incurred, or reasonably likely to be owned or incurred, by the 

individual.” Section 1a(18)(xi) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18)(xi) (2018). 

31. FCM’s hold customer funds to margin commodity derivative transactions. They 

are a critical component of the U.S. financial system, and therefore must meet stringent 

requirements imposed by the Act and Regulations. Among the most fundamental of these 

requirements is Section 4d(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a) (2018), which makes it illegal for any 

person to be an FCM unless registered as such with the Commission. FCMs must establish 

safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest, Section 4d(c) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d(c) (2018); 

segregate customer assets to protect them from the risk of the FCM’s insolvency, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6d(a)(2); and employ only salespeople who register with the CFTC and meet strict proficiency 

requirements, Section 4k(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(1) (2018). 

32. Regulation 166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2019), requires a Commission registrant 

such as an FCM to diligently supervise all activities of its officers, employees, and agents 

relating to its business as an FCM. The term “Commission registrant” as used in 17 C.F.R. 

§ 166.3 means “any person who is registered or required to be registered with the Commission 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 11 of 40
12

pursuant to the Act or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder” Regulation 166.1(a), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 166.1(a) (2019). 

33. Regulation 42.2, 17 C.F.R. § 42.2 (2019) requires, among other things, that every 

FCM shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and the 

regulations promulgated by the Department of the Treasury under that Act at 31 C.F.R. 

chapter X, and with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5318(l) and the implementing regulation 

jointly promulgated by the Commission and the Department of the Treasury at 31 C.F.R. 

§ 1026.220, which require that a customer identification program (“CIP”) be adopted as part of 

the firm’s BSA compliance program. 

34. 31 U.S.C. § 5318(l) (2018) requires, among other things, that financial institutions 

such as FCMs implement reasonable procedures to verify the identity of any person seeking to 

open an account, maintain records of information used to verify a person’s identify, and consult 

lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations (such as those created and 

distributed by the Office of Foreign Asset Control of the United States Department of Treasury 

(“OFAC”) to determine whether a person seeking to open an account appears on any such list. 

35. The regulations promulgated by the Department of Treasury under 31 C.F.R. 

chapter X require, as relevant here, that every FCM must: (1) implement a written CIP that, at a 

minimum, includes procedures for verifying the identify of each customer sufficient to enable the 

FCM to form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identify of each customer; (2) retain 

records collected pursuant to the CIP; and (3) implement procedures for determining whether a 

customer appears on any list of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 12 of 40
13

V. FACTS 

A. The BitMEX Trading Platform and Products 

36. BitMEX is a peer-to-peer “crypto-products platform” that offers the trading of 

cryptocurrency derivatives including bitcoin, ether and litecoin. As of September 5, 2020, 

BitMEX advertises that it has a transaction volume of $74.06 billion during the prior thirty days, 

and $956.83 billion during the past year. 

37. BitMEX offers leveraged trading of cryptocurrency derivatives to retail (nonECP) and institutional customers in the U.S. and throughout the world through BitMEX’s 

website, www.bitmex.com, the BitMEX mobile app, and by direct connection to its trading 

engine servers via the BitMEX application protocol interface (“API”). The API connection is 

generally used by more technologically sophisticated BitMEX customers. 

38. On its website, BitMEX advertises that “sign up takes less than 30 seconds,” and 

that customers can “trade in minutes; deposits only require one confirmation.” BitMEX allows 

customers to open accounts with an anonymous email and password, and a deposit of bitcoin. 

BitMEX does not collect any documents to verify the identity or location of the vast majority of 

its users. 

39. BitMEX is a pure derivatives exchange as opposed to a spot market for the 

purchase or sale of virtual currencies. BitMEX allows customers to place buy or sell orders for 

its various cryptocurrency derivatives with leverage of up to 100 to 1, meaning a customer with 

$10,000 in his or her account may execute a trade with a notional value of $1,000,000. BitMEX 

does not actually deliver the cryptocurrencies underlying the contracts it offers for trading on its 

platform. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 13 of 40
14

40. BitMEX offers the leveraged trading of cryptocurrency derivatives; BitMEX does 

not actually deliver the cryptocurrencies whose prices underlie the various contracts and 

transactions BitMEX offers. 

41. BitMEX accepts deposits to and allows withdrawals from the platform in bitcoin. 

BitMEX requires customers to deposit bitcoin to margin trading positions in its various contracts. 

BitMEX allows customers to place buy (long) and sell (short) orders in an electronic order book, 

and matches customer orders in what it calls its “trading engine.” 

42. To keep positions open, BitMEX customers are required to hold a percentage of 

the value of their trading positions on the exchange as margin. BitMEX describes “Initial 

Margin” as “the minimum amount of bitcoin you must deposit to open a position.” BitMEX 

describes “Maintenance Margin” as “the minimum amount of bitcoin you must hold to keep a 

position open.” If a customer’s margin balance drops below the Maintenance Margin level, 

BitMEX takes over the customer’s trading position, the position is liquidated, and the customer’s 

maintenance margin is lost. If BitMEX is able to liquidate the position at above what it calls the 

“bankruptcy” price, the funds are added to BitMEX’s “Insurance Fund.” If BitMEX is unable to 

liquidate the position above the bankruptcy price, BitMEX uses funds from its Insurance Fund to 

make up the difference, or may close out positions of other traders on the exchange in what 

BitMEX calls an “Auto-Deleveraging event.” 

43. BitMEX acts as the counterparty to certain transactions on its platform, such as 

through its internal “market-making” desk, or through the BitMEX “Liquidation Engine” that 

can assume a customer’s position under certain circumstances. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 14 of 40
15

44. In general, BitMEX makes money by charging execution fees for trades made on 

the BitMEX platform. BitMEX has made more than $1 billion in fees since its inception in 

2014. 

45. Hayes, Delo, and Reed launched the BitMEX trading platform for live trading in 

November of 2014. Initially, BitMEX offered only two futures contracts, the “XBT” and the 

“XBU,” both of which were based on the value of a dollar against the value of a bitcoin. Over 

time, BitMEX added various virtual currency derivatives contracts to its suite of products, 

including futures, options and swaps on bitcoin, litecoin and ether. 

46. On May 13, 2016, BitMEX launched its first swap product, a “perpetual bitcoin 

U.S. dollar leveraged swap product,” which it has described generally as “the XBTUSD 

perpetual swap.” On its website, BitMEX has described its “Perpetual Contract” (or “perpetual 

swap contract”) as “a product similar to a traditional Futures Contract in how it trades.” BitMEX 

claims its “XBTUSD” perpetual swap is “the most traded cryptocurrency product of all time.” 

47. Between November 22, 2014 and February 9, 2020, BitMEX has had over 2.5 

trillion contracts traded on its platform. Most of that volume—more than two trillion contracts—

has been in the XBTUSD swap. 

48. Despite its significant trading volume, the varied products offered for trading, and 

acting in a capacity requiring designation or registration as a DCM or SEF, BitMEX has not 

implemented rules or procedures to achieve compliance with the core principles required of 

DCMs or SEFs under the CEA and Regulations. Among other critical issues, BitMEX has failed 

to implement rules or procedures sufficient to ensure that: the contracts it offers are not readily 

susceptible to manipulation; market participants are prevented from engaging in manipulation or 

disruptive trading; and market participants who engage in misconduct are subject to discipline. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 15 of 40
16

49. Contrary to requirements imposed on DCMs and SEFs, BitMEX has failed to 

maintain required records, and in fact has actively deleted required records including critical 

customer identification information. 

50. Further, BitMEX has failed to establish rules to minimize conflicts of interest. 

This is apparent because Hayes, Delo, Reed, and numerous other BitMEX employees trade on 

the platform, and BitMEX’s own internal “market-making” desk has at times been one of the 

largest traders on the platform. 

B. BitMEX’s U.S. Operations and Offices 

51. Throughout the Relevant Period, BitMEX has conducted major components of its 

business and maintained a significant presence in the U.S. 

52. During the Relevant Period, BitMEX has employed approximately half of its 

workforce in the U.S., including at least 9 in New York and 56 in San Francisco. 

53. BitMEX’s U.S.-based employees’ and agents’ compensation is typically paid by 

ABS, a company controlled by Hayes, Delo, and Reed. An April 27, 2017 Service Agreement 

between HDR and ABS renders ABS staff contractually responsible for BitMEX’s business 

development, marketing, sales, engineering, human resources, payroll, customer support and 

software development from its U.S. offices in San Francisco and New York. 

54. BitMEX executives based outside of the U.S. frequently visit BitMEX’s San 

Francisco offices. Hayes and other BitMEX sales staff have frequently traveled to the U.S. to 

solicit customers for BitMEX and to publicly promote BitMEX in through U.S. media outlets. 

55. Since the BitMEX San Francisco office opened in 2017, at least the following 

functions have been performed from that office: Product Engineering, Incident Response, and 

Software and Security Engineering, Product Management, User Experience/Visual Design/UX, 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 16 of 40
17

Dev Ops Engineering, Data Engineering, Kubernetes Engineering, Web Development, Human 

Resources, Ventures, Security and IT, Communications, Marketing, Accounting, and Recruiting. 

56. Beginning in 2014 and continuing through the Relevant Period, Reed has worked 

primarily from within the U.S. Reed was the primary architect of BitMEX’s website and order 

entry system. Reed also has been responsible for BitMEX’s information security management, 

along with a team based primarily in BitMEX’s San Francisco office. On March 1, 2018, 

BitMEX leased office space for ABS in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where Reed performed work for 

BitMEX. 

57. BitMEX’s Head of Business Development was based in New York for the 

majority of the Relevant Period. This executive reported to, and continues to report to Hayes. 

While residing and acting on behalf of BitMEX in the U.S., specifically in this District, this 

executive has been responsible for leading BitMEX’s Customer Support team, managing sales 

staff worldwide, leading institutional sales, speaking publicly about BitMEX, developing 

products for BitMEX, and leading BitMEX’s internal “market making” desk that trades on the 

BitMEX platform. 

58. BitMEX continued to increase its New York presence in 2018, hiring a Marketing 

Manager in April 2018 to promote BitMEX, an Investment Associate in May 2018, an Art 

Director in July 2018, and a Content Manager to write strategic marketing communications, 

press releases, pitches, emails, and web content in October 2018. Consistent with this increased 

presence, on May 1, 2018, a BitMEX executive signed an agreement for office space in New 

York. 

59. To respond to U.S. customer service issues and emails, BitMEX hired a Customer 

Service Representative in October 2017 to work remotely from New Jersey. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 17 of 40
18

60. BitMEX recently closed its New York office, but continues to run significant 

portions of its derivatives trading platform from San Francisco, and remotely from other parts of 

the U.S. 

61. BitMEX uses vendors based in the United States for critical components of its 

business, for example using Google products for email services, using Slack for an internal 

BitMEX communications platform, and Amazon Web Services for data storage and handling. 

62. BitMEX also uses the benefits and protections of the U.S. legal system. For 

example, BitMEX has applied for various United States trademarks and service marks on the 

BitMEX name and logo. On March 29, 2018, BitMEX applied with the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office for a trademark on the word “BitMEX.” The owner of record for the 

“BitMEX” U.S. Word Mark is HDR. 

C. Hayes, Delo, and Reed Have Controlled BitMEX and Operated BitMEX 

as a Common Enterprise 

63. Throughout the Relevant Period, Hayes, Delo, and Reed have controlled the 

BitMEX common enterprise, including the various corporate entities that comprise BitMEX for 

the common purpose of operating the BitMEX trading facility. Hayes, Delo, and Reed each sign 

documents on behalf of the various BitMEX corporate entities. They control the bank and 

trading accounts for the various BitMEX corporate entities. They have the authority to hire and 

fire employees. And they ultimately control the deposits to and withdrawals from the BitMEX 

platform. 

64. Hayes, Delo, and Reed incorporated HDR as a Seychelles International Business 

Company on June 23, 2014. They were the three original Directors of HDR, and each owned 

approximately one third of that entity. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 18 of 40
19

65. Hayes signed many of the initial corporate documents for HDR, agreeing in 

documents to act “as principal agent” of the entity, and representing that HDR would not 

“engage in any businesses which are considered to be illegal in Hong Kong or other countries in 

the world.” 

66. Hayes, Delo, and Reed incorporated Shine in Hong Kong on August 6, 2014. The 

first Director and Chairman of the company was Hayes. Delo was later appointed as Chairman 

of Shine, and in that role approved the lease of office space in the Cheung Kong Centre in Hong 

Kong. 

67. Hayes, Delo, and Reed incorporated ABS in Delaware on April 27, 2017, at 

which time Hayes was “elected as the sole director of the Corporation.” In a corporate resolution 

on the same date, Hayes was appointed to be the President, Secretary and Treasurer of ABS, and 

given authority to open and manage bank accounts on behalf of ABS. The same resolution 

“authorized and directed [ABS] to borrow funds from HDR Global Trading Limited.” 

68. A November 2017 ABS corporate resolution authorized Hayes and Reed as 

“designated signatories,” able to open bank accounts on behalf of ABS. Hayes and Reed also 

have held credit cards for ABS. 

69. Hayes, Delo, and Reed have shared responsibility for various aspects of the 

BitMEX business. At a high level, Delo has been responsible for building and overseeing the 

BitMEX trading engine, Reed has been responsible for building and overseeing the BitMEX 

website, API and order entry system, and Hayes has been responsible for strategic decisions, 

business development, marketing, and management of the BitMEX enterprise. Hayes has also 

been primarily responsible for representing BitMEX in public speaking engagements and 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 19 of 40
20

appearances, and has authored many of the posts on the BitMEX blog. Hayes regularly appears 

as a speaker at conferences throughout the world, including in the U.S., on behalf of BitMEX. 

70. Hayes, Delo, and Reed have worked together to build the BitMEX platform, and 

all have been involved in the critical decisions for the enterprise, such as whether (or not) to 

pursue regulatory approval for the platform, or whether (or not) to implement KYC or AML 

policies and procedures. For example, in August 2014, shortly before the launch of the platform, 

Hayes wrote to Delo that BitMEX would not do any KYC, saying “Basically just valid email 

address until we feel significant pressure to do otherwise.” 

71. Hayes, Delo, and Reed all were involved in discussions with compliance 

consultants for BitMEX, even before the launch of the platform, and all three have participated 

in discussions with BitMEX’s numerous lawyers to discuss legal and regulatory issues facing 

BitMEX. 

72. Hayes, Delo, and Reed have made decisions on BitMEX’s products, including 

deciding how to structure BitMEX’s futures, options and swaps contracts. Hayes, Delo, and 

Reed also have been involved with developing and managing BitMEX’s internal market maker 

trading algorithms. 

73. The control by Hayes, Delo, and Reed continues today. While BitMEX has hired 

employees to manage certain aspects of trading facility, those individuals all ultimately act under 

the direction and control of Hayes, Delo, and Reed. Key financial and trading decisions require 

“Founder” approval, meaning approval by Hayes, Delo, and Reed. 

D. BitMEX Solicits US Customers 

74. BitMEX has devoted significant resources to soliciting customers in the U.S. 

BitMEX solicits orders from U.S.-based customers for futures, options, and swaps by advertising 

on its website and on social media, including the BitMEX blog, Twitter, Reddit, Telegram, 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 20 of 40
21

Facebook, and a BitMEX YouTube page. A 2015 BitMEX investor presentation prepared by 

Hayes stated that a “constant presence on these media platforms ensures that . . . [when the] 

Bitcoin community thinks of derivatives BitMEX comes to mind.” BitMEX also solicits 

customers and advertises in the U.S. at various conferences and at meetings with individual 

customers. 

75. BitMEX also solicits customers through its “affiliate” program. BitMEX’s 

affiliate program allows U.S. customers to solicit other customers to trade on the platform in 

exchange for compensation from BitMEX. BitMEX provides customers with an affiliate link 

which they can share, for example as many BitMEX affiliate marketers do on Twitter, and 

receive compensation for customers who follow the link to open accounts and trade on the 

platform. 

76. Dozens of U.S. residents publicly identify themselves on social media as traders 

on the BitMEX platform, often also providing affiliate links encouraging social media followers 

to open accounts and trade on the BitMEX platform. BitMEX is aware of this because BitMEX 

monitors social media platforms such as Twitter, Telegram and Reddit for references to BitMEX, 

for years pulling references to BitMEX customers who participated in BitMEX’s affiliate 

program. 

77. In October of 2016, a senior BitMEX executive confirmed directly in response to 

a customer question that U.S. persons could solicit for BitMEX in connection with the affiliate 

program and be paid by BitMEX in bitcoin on the BitMEX platform, stating: “It is fine for you 

to set up the account (while being located in the US) with us if you are not trading and only 

withdrawing the affiliate commissions . . . You do not need to do anything on your end to restrict 

them from your marketing, if they happen to sign up with a US IP and they are not US residents 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 21 of 40
22

then we will ask them to provide alternative verification. If they sign up from a non-US IP then 

no need to worry.” 

78. As of July 27, 2018, at least 1,100 U.S. affiliate program customers received 

affiliate payments from BitMEX for soliciting customers to trade on BitMEX. In 2019, BitMEX 

paid out $66 million to customers in affiliate commissions. 

79. Senior executives at BitMEX have openly acknowledged the solicitation of U.S. 

customers through the BitMEX affiliate marketing scheme, noting in internal chats that one user 

“openly tells Americans on Twitter and his website to use a VPN [a Virtual Private Network] to 

sign up for BitMEX” providing his BitMEX affiliate link and VPN link at the same time, having 

“pulled in around -43 XBT from the [affiliate] program.” Hayes was in direct contact with this 

specific affiliate marketer, handling BitMEX’s relationship with the user and communicating 

with him about his BitMEX affiliate pay-outs. 

80. The use by U.S. customers of VPN services, which create a private network from 

a public internet connection and mask the customer’s internet protocol (IP) address so online 

actions are virtually untraceable, to access and trade on the BitMEX platform, is an open secret. 

For example, YouTube contains videos of U.S. customers trading on BitMEX, along with 

instructions on how to access BitMEX from the U.S. Messaging applications Discord and 

Telegram have chat groups that instruct U.S. residents to use a VPN to access BitMEX if trading 

from the U.S. Internal documents including BitMEX customer service representative emails and 

chats reflect regular awareness of the use by U.S. persons of VPN services to access and trade on 

the BitMEX platform. 

81. In addition to soliciting U.S. retail customers, BitMEX has also marketed directly 

to proprietary trading firms and other institutional customers based in the U.S., has held meetings 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 22 of 40
23

in the U.S., and has solicited firms to open accounts to trade on BitMEX through off-shore 

entities. Internal BitMEX emails note the need to focus on “business development and 

marketing” to institutional customers, with a dedicated employee for “US and European 

markets.” 

82. In 2014, BitMEX solicited a proprietary trading firm headquartered in Chicago, 

Illinois to be the first “lead market maker” on the BitMEX platform. Hayes, Delo, and Reed 

were all directly involved in communications with the firm’s executives in Chicago. 

83. BitMEX staff frequently has met with U.S. traders. For example, BitMEX 

executives traveled to Chicago in July 2018 to meet with at least seven major Chicago-based 

trading firms. In addition, BitMEX executives also met with prominent proprietary trading firms 

in New York. 

84. Throughout the Relevant Period, BitMEX’s U.S. customers have been able to 

access the BitMEX platform from the U.S.—either via API or through the BitMEX website 

accessed on their own computers located in the U.S. via a VPN. 

E. BitMEX Fails To Implement Anti-Money Laundering and Know-YourCustomer Procedures, or a Customer Information Program. 

85. Throughout the Relevant Period, BitMEX has failed to implement any KYC 

procedures or a CIP that would enable it to identify U.S. persons–or the true identity of the vast 

majority of its customers, whether from the U.S. or elsewhere. 

86. BitMEX has not implemented any AML policies or procedures, which are 

required of financial institutions such as FCMs to prevent or detect, among other things, terrorist 

financing or other criminal activity. 

87. BitMEX has no CIP, which, like KYC procedures, is required of certain financial 

institutions including FCMs. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 23 of 40
24

88. BitMEX has also “deleted” records for numerous accounts, in certain cases 

explicitly because a user was found to be located in the U.S. or another “restricted jurisdiction.” 

In a December 2018 chat involving BitMEX Customer Support personnel, a BitMEX supervisor 

describes the policy: “At the moment we are deleting people's accounts once they have 

withdrawn if they are from a restricted jurisdiction.” 

89. Throughout the Relevant Period, Hayes, Delo, and Reed have been fully aware 

that U.S. customers have used VPN to access the BitMEX platform. For example, Delo and 

Reed regularly received email notification indicating new U.S. customers were opening accounts 

on BitMEX, and its self-identified “thought leader” and “visionary” Hayes has also advised U.S. 

customers on how to trade on BitMEX, stating, “If you have a non-US company that can open an 

account with us, Greg our head of business development can assist.” BitMEX even maintained 

an internal dashboard of open accounts from supposedly restricted jurisdictions. 

90. Delo altered a U.S. resident’s (and prominent BitMEX user) account location to 

Canada for a user that brought in 1,336 user accounts through BitMEX’s affiliate program. 

91. Hayes, Delo, and Reed received or had access to spreadsheets and reports that 

showed the trading volume, revenue to BitMEX, and other account and transactional information 

for U.S. based traders. For example, BitMEX country revenue reports from October 2018 

contain information about the number of U.S traders on its platform. 

92. As late as November 3, 2018, still BitMEX did not “have any rules in place” with 

regard to U.S. customers. Even after BitMEX began imposing some restrictions on access to the 

platform by U.S. traders, Hayes, Delo, and Reed crafted exceptions for certain U.S. traders and 

were aware that other U.S. traders accessed the platform by using VPN. Further, BitMEX’s lack 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 24 of 40
25

of any KYC procedures or a CIP made BitMEX’s superficial steps to block U.S. traders 

ineffective. 

F. BitMEX Was Aware of U.S. Regulatory Requirements but Attempted to 

Evade Them 

93. Hayes, Delo, and Reed were aware of the regulatory regime applicable to U.S. 

financial institutions such as FCMs, but made conscious decisions throughout the Relevant 

Period to avoid and evade them. 

94. For example, in a March 2015 investor presentation laying out BitMEX’s 

business plan, Hayes wrote that: 

a. BitMEX chose to incorporate HDR in the Seychelles because “FX exchanges do not 

need to register for a financial services license if they conduct all of their business 

offshore,” 

b. “Bitcoin derivatives are completely unregulated worldwide. No government 

regulator has come out with any definitive guidance. Regulators are still trying to 

tackle the exchanging of fiat and Bitcoin. The fact that BitMEX is Bitcoin only and 

does not touch and [sic] domestic fiat currency also helps shield the exchange from 

regulations.” 

c. “The CFTC is expected to deliver guidance on Bitcoin derivatives sometime in 2H 

2015, BitMEX wants to be able to service the US market.” Attorneys for BitMEX 

“will be advising BitMEX on how to tackle any regulation that the CFTC plans to 

enact. As it currently stands now the type of Bitcoin derivatives that BitMEX offers 

can be traded by US persons.” 

d. “BitMEX deals only in Bitcoin and does not transfer between two value stores. 

From a regulatory standpoint, this means that BitMEX is not required to conduct 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 25 of 40
26

KYC or AML on any accounts. Users can sign up with just a verified email 

address.” 

e. “BitMEX recognizes that to attacht [sic] the deepest pools of liquidity obtaining a 

financial license in a well respected jurisdiction is a must. AS trading volumes and 

revenues grow, BitMEX will be actively looking at favorable jurisdicts [sic] from 

which to become a regulated derivatives exchange. New Zealand, Islae of Man, 

Jersey, and Gibraltar, are some of the jurisdicitons [sic] that BitMEX and its legal 

team are investigating.” 

95. BitMEX’s co-founders were aware of the need to know the identity of BitMEX 

customers throughout the Relevant Period. Around the launch of the platform, Hayes, Delo, and 

Reed contacted a compliance consultant who told them in November of 2014 that: 

You need to know [who] you think you are dealing with is in fact who you are 

dealing with. Specifically, because of the nature of your business, you require this 

to be a global identity dataset. You need to ensure that you do not violate 

countless international statutory regulations which prohibit dealing with a variety 

of barred entities. 

Nonetheless, Hayes, Delo, and Reed decided to ignore U.S. and other countries’ regulations 

requiring BitMEX to verify the identity of its customers. 

96. In 2015, a potential business partner for BitMEX asked Hayes about BitMEX’s 

“regulatory compliance landscape,” asking “do you have any particular licenses or registrations 

in any jurisdictions to conduct your business? Such as FinCEN, BitLicense or money transmitter 

licenses? Do you do business in the US (ie do you accept customers resident in the US)?” 

Hayes responded, “We do not have any licenses. We are incorporated in the Seychelles, and 

accept customers globally except for NY State.” 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 26 of 40
27

97. In a blog post in May of 2015, Hayes mocked the efforts of a competitor to 

comply with U.S. regulatory requirements. Hayes wrote that this exchange “Kissed the Ring and 

can sort of offer their services throughout the US.” Hayes noted in the same blog post a different 

firm in the virtual currency industry on the “wrong side of the tracks,” because it had “failed to 

adhere to the Bank Secrecy Act.” 

98. In September of 2015, the CFTC charged and settled two matters involving 

violations of the CEA by two firms involved in digital asset transactions, one of which was 

charged with illegally operating a facility for the trading or processing of bitcoin options and 

swaps without being registered with the CFTC as a DCM or SEF. Hayes recognized that “this 

will have an impact on” BitMEX’s business, and that one of BitMEX’s goals is to “obtain legal 

clarity as to next steps as it regards to US Bitcoin regulations and the CFTC.” 

99. Yet BitMEX’s efforts to evade, rather than comply with, regulations in the U.S. 

continued well after 2015 and even to the present. For example, throughout the Relevant Period 

BitMEX executives coached U.S.-based trading firms to incorporate off-shore entities in order to 

open trading accounts on BitMEX through those off-shore entities. The notes of one BitMEX 

executive in 2018 reflect the rationale: “We do not service US individuals or US entities given 

we do not have the required licenses that fall under CFTC regulations when offering derivative 

products. As such, we cannot have clients based in the US with trading functions that could give 

a US regulator an argument to assert jurisdiction on.” Yet, the executives at the U.S. based firms 

courted and regularly communicated with regarding trading on the BitMEX platform were 

inevitably based in the U.S. 

100. In August of 2020, BitMEX finally announced plans to begin conducting KYC on 

customer accounts, supposedly to begin at some point in 2021. But Hayes, Delo, and Reed made 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 27 of 40
28

deliberate decisions throughout the Relevant Period to refrain from implementing KYC and 

AML procedures, despite knowing other business partners and competitors were implementing 

such procedures. For example, Hayes communicated with executives of other cryptocurrency 

exchanges about KYC obligations. In fact, Hayes regularly filled out KYC forms for himself 

and BitMEX’s various corporate entities at other exchanges and with BitMEX trading partners, 

often noting BitMEX’s own decision not to implement any KYC or AML procedures. For 

example on March 17, 2016, Hayes exchanged emails with a U.S.-based exchange in response to 

questions about BitMEX’s policies: 

Apart from blocking US residents from using our platform we do no other KYC 

as we are not required to under Seychelles law for the products that we offer. For 

non US persons we require only a verified email address. 

101. At the time Hayes wrote that BitMEX was “blocking” U.S.-based users, 

thousands of U.S. persons were in fact trading on BitMEX’s platform. 

VI. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND REGULATIONS 

COUNT I 

Violations of Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a) (2018), or, alternatively, Section 4(b) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(b) and Regulation 48.3, 17 C.F.R. 48.3 (2019) 

Execution of Futures Transactions on an Unregistered Board of Trade 

102. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 101 are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference. 

103. During the Relevant Period, Defendants HDR, 100x, ABS, Shine, and HDR 

Services, all acting as a common enterprise and doing business as BitMEX, and through their 

officers, employees, and agents, violated and are continuing to violate 7 U.S.C. § 6(a) by: 

a. offering to enter into retail commodity transactions, or contracts for the purchase or 

sale of bitcoin, litecoin and ether for future delivery; 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 28 of 40
29

b. entering into retail commodity transactions, or contracts for the purchase or sale of 

bitcoin, litecoin and ether for future delivery; 

c. confirming the execution of retail commodity transactions, or contracts for the 

purchase or sale of bitcoin, litecoin and ether for future delivery; and 

d. conducting an office or business in the U.S. for the purpose of soliciting, or 

accepting any order for, or otherwise dealing in, any transaction in, or in connection 

with, retail commodity transactions or contracts for the purchase or sale of bitcoin, 

litecoin and ether for future delivery; 

without conducting its futures transactions on or subject to the rules of a board of trade that was 

designated or registered by the CFTC as a contract market. 

104. BitMEX’s retail commodity transactions are and were offered, entered into or 

executed on a leveraged or margined basis, or are and were financed by the offeror, the 

counterparty, or a person acting in concert with the offeror or counterparty on a similar basis. 

105. BitMEX’s retail commodity transactions are and were offered to, entered into or 

executed with persons who are not eligible contract participants or eligible commercial entities 

and who are not engaged in a line of business related to cryptocurrencies. 

106. In the alternative, during the Relevant Period, Defendants HDR, 100x, ABS, 

Shine, and HDR Services, all acting as a common enterprise and doing business as BitMEX, and 

through their officers, employees, and agents, violated and are continuing to violate 

7 U.S.C. § 6(b) and Commission Regulation 48.3, 17 C.F.R. § 48.3 (2019), by permitting direct 

access to its electronic trading and order matching system without obtaining an Order of 

Registration for a foreign board of trade from the Commission. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 29 of 40
30

107. Each offer to enter into, execution of, and/or confirmation of the execution of 

illegal off exchange futures transactions, including, without limitation, those specifically alleged 

herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6(a) or, alternatively, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 48.3. 

108. During the Relevant Period, Hayes, Reed and Delo directly or indirectly 

controlled BitMEX, and did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the 

acts constituting BitMEX’s violations described in this Count. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) (2018), Hayes, Reed and Delo are therefore liable for BitMEX’s 

violations described in this Count to the same extent as BitMEX. 

109. The acts and omissions of Hayes, Reed, Delo, and other officers, employees, or 

agents acting for BitMEX described in this Complaint were done within the scope of their office, 

employment, or agency with BitMEX. Therefore, pursuant to Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) (2018), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2, BitMEX is liable as a 

principal for each act, omission, or failure of the other officers, employees, or agents persons 

acting for BitMEX. 

COUNT II 

Violations of Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2018), and 

Regulation 32.2, 17 C.F.R. § 32.2 (2019) 

Illegal Off-Exchange Commodity Options 

110. Paragraphs 1 through 101 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

111. During the Relevant Period, Defendants HDR, 100x, ABS, Shine, and HDR 

Services, all acting as a common enterprise and doing business as BitMEX, and through their 

officers, employees, and agents, violated 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and Regulation 32.2 by offering to 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 30 of 40
31

enter into, entering into, confirming the execution of, maintaining positions in, and otherwise 

conducting activities relating to commodity option transactions in interstate commerce. 

112. The commodity options that BitMEX offered to enter into, entered into, 

confirmed the execution of, maintained positions in, and otherwise conducted activities relating 

to, were not executed on any registered board of trade, nor has BitMEX sought registration as an 

exempt foreign board of trade. 

113. Each act in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.2, including, but not 

limited to, those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation. 

114. Hayes, Reed and Delo directly or indirectly controlled BitMEX and did not act in 

good faith, or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts constituting BitMEX’s 

violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.2. Therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), 

Hayes, Reed and Delo are liable as a controlling person for each of BitMEX’s violations of 

7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.2. 

115. The acts and omissions of Hayes, Reed, Delo, and other officers, employees, or 

agents acting for BitMEX described in this Complaint were done within the scope of their office, 

employment, or agency with BitMEX. Therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 

17 C.F.R. § 1.2, BitMEX is liable as a principal for each act, omission, or failure of the other 

officers, employees, or agents persons acting for BitMEX, constituting violations of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.2. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 31 of 40
32

COUNT III 

Violation of Section 4d of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d (2018) 

Failure to Register as a Futures Commission Merchant 

116. Paragraphs 1 through 101 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

117. During the Relevant Period, Defendants HDR, 100x, ABS, Shine, and HDR 

Services, all acting as a common enterprise and doing business as BitMEX, and through their 

officers, employees, and agents, have operated as a Futures Commission Merchant, and are 

continuing to operate as a Futures Commission Merchant, by: 

a. engaging in soliciting or accepting orders for the purchase or sale commodities for 

future delivery; 

b. engaging in soliciting or accepting orders for swaps; 

c. engaging in soliciting or accepting orders for agreements, contracts or transactions 

described in section 2(c)(2)(D)(i) of the Act (retail commodity transactions); and/or 

d. acting as a counterparty in agreements, contracts, or transactions described in section 

2(C)(2)(D)(i); 

and, in or in connection with these activities, accepting money, securities, or property (or 

extending credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure resulting trades on the BitMEX 

platform. 

118. During the Relevant Period, Defendants HDR, 100x, ABS, Shine, and HDR 

Services, all acting as a common enterprise and doing business as BitMEX, and through their 

officers, employees, and agents, violated and are continuing to violate 7 U.S.C. § 6d by failing to 

register with the Commission as a Futures Commission Merchant. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 32 of 40
33

119. Each act in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6d, including, but not limited to, those 

specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation. 

120. Hayes, Reed and Delo directly or indirectly controlled BitMEX and did not act in 

good faith, or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts constituting BitMEX’s 

violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6d. Therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Hayes, Reed and Delo are 

liable as a controlling person for each of BitMEX’s violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6d. 

121. The acts and omissions of Hayes, Reed, Delo, and other officers, employees, or 

agents acting for BitMEX described in this Complaint were done within the scope of their office, 

employment, or agency with BitMEX. Therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 

17 C.F.R. § 1.2, BitMEX is liable as a principal for each act, omission, or failure of the other 

officers, employees, or agents persons acting for BitMEX, constituting violations of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6d. 

COUNT IV 

Violations of Section 5h(a)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7b-3(1) (2018), and 

Regulation 37.3(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 37.3(a)(1) (2019) 

Failure to Register as a Designated Contract Market or Swap Execution Facility

122. Paragraphs 1 through 101 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

123. During the Relevant Period, Defendants HDR, 100x, ABS, Shine, and HDR 

Services, all acting as a common enterprise and doing business as BitMEX, and through their 

officers, employees, and agents, violated and are continuing to violate 7 U.S.C. § 7b-3 and 

17 C.F.R. § 37.3(a)(1) by operating a facility for the trading of swaps on digital assets including 

bitcoin, ether, and litecoin without registering with the CFTC as a DCM or a SEF. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 33 of 40
34

124. BitMEX has operated and is continuing to operate a trading system or platform in 

which more than one market participant has the ability to execute or trade swaps with more than 

one other market participant on the system or platform, including the trading or processing of 

swap on digital assets including bitcoin, ether, and litcoin, without being registered as a DCM or 

SEF. 

125. Certain products that have traded on BitMEX, including “perpetual swaps” or 

“perpetual contracts” on bitcoin, ether, and litecoin, are swaps as defined by 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47). 

126. Each act in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 7b-3 and 17 C.F.R. § 37.3, including, but not 

limited to, those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation. 

127. Hayes, Reed and Delo directly or indirectly controlled BitMEX and did not act in 

good faith, or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts constituting BitMEX’s 

violations of 7 U.S.C. § 7b-3 and 17 C.F.R. § 37.3. Therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), 

Hayes, Reed and Delo are liable as a controlling person for each of BitMEX’s violations of 

7 U.S.C. § 7b-3 and 17 C.F.R. § 37.3. 

128. The acts and omissions of Hayes, Reed, Delo, and other officers, employees, or 

agents acting for BitMEX described in this Complaint were done within the scope of their office, 

employment, or agency with BitMEX. Therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 

17 C.F.R. § 1.2, BitMEX is liable as a principal for each act, omission, or failure of the other 

officers, employees, or agents persons acting for BitMEX, constituting violations of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 7b-3 and 17 C.F.R. § 37.3. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 34 of 40
35

COUNT V 

Violations of Regulation 166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2019) 

Failure to Supervise 

129. Paragraphs 1 through 101 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

130. During the Relevant Period, Defendants HDR, 100x, ABS, Shine, and HDR 

Services, all acting as a common enterprise and doing business as BitMEX, and through their 

officers, employees, and agents, violated and are continuing to violate 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 by 

employing an inadequate supervisory system and failing to perform its supervisory duties 

diligently. More specifically, BitMEX violated and is continuing to violate 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 

by, among other things, failing to implement a Customer Information Program, failing to 

implement and conduct Know-Your-Customer procedures, failing to implement Anti-Money 

Laundering procedures, and by failing to ensure that its partners, officers, employees, and agents, 

lawfully and appropriately handled all commodity interest accounts at BitMEX. 

131. BitMEX is and has been acting as an FCM, and therefore 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 

applies to BitMEX, as if it were a Commission registrant. 

132. Each act in violation of 17 C.F.R. § 166.3, including, but not limited to, those 

specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation. 

133. Hayes, Reed and Delo directly or indirectly controlled BitMEX and did not act in 

good faith, or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts constituting BitMEX’s 

violations of 17 C.F.R. § 166.3. Therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Hayes, Reed and Delo 

are liable as a controlling person for each of BitMEX’s violations of 17 C.F.R. § 166.3. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 35 of 40
36

134. The acts and omissions of Hayes, Reed, Delo, and other officers, employees, or 

agents acting for BitMEX described in this Complaint were done within the scope of their office, 

employment, or agency with BitMEX. Therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 

17 C.F.R. § 1.2, BitMEX is liable as a principal for each act, omission, or failure of the other 

officers, employees, or agents persons acting for BitMEX, constituting violations of 17 C.F.R. 

§ 166.3. 

COUNT VI 

Violations of Regulation 42.2, 17 C.F.R. § 42.2 (2019) 

Failure to Implement Customer Information Program, and Failure to Implement Know 

Your Customer and Anti-Money Laundering Procedures 

135. Paragraphs 1 through 101 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

136. During the Relevant Period, Defendants HDR, 100x, ABS, Shine, and HDR 

Services, all acting as a common enterprise and doing business as BitMEX, and through their 

officers, employees, and agents, violated and are continuing to violate 17 C.F.R. § 42.2 by failing 

to implement a Customer Information Program, failing to implement Know-Your-Customer 

policies and procedures, failing to implement an Anti-Money Laundering program, failing to 

retain required customer information, and failing to implement procedures to determine whether 

a customer appears on lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations such as 

those issued by OFAC. 

137. Each act in violation of 17 C.F.R. § 42.2, including, but not limited to, those 

specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation. 

138. Hayes, Reed and Delo directly or indirectly controlled BitMEX and did not act in 

good faith, or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts constituting BitMEX’s 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 36 of 40
37

violations of 17 C.F.R. § 42.2. Therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Hayes, Reed and Delo 

are liable as a controlling person for each of BitMEX’s violations of 17 C.F.R. § 42.2. 

139. The acts and omissions of Hayes, Reed, Delo, and other officers, employees, or 

agents acting for BitMEX described in this Complaint were done within the scope of their office, 

employment, or agency with BitMEX. Therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 

17 C.F.R. § 1.2, BitMEX is liable as a principal for each act, omission, or failure of the other 

officers, employees, or agents persons acting for BitMEX, constituting violations of 17 C.F.R. 

§ 42.2. 

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED 

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

6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-l (2018), and pursuant to the Court’s own equitable powers, enter: 

A. An order finding that Defendants 100x, HDR, ABS, Shine, and HDR Services, 

collectively doing business as BitMEX, and through their officers, employees, and agents, 

including without limitation Hayes, Delo, and Reed, violated Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6(a) (2018) (or, in the alternative, Section 4(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(b) and Regulation 48.3, 

17 C.F.R. 48.3 (2019)); Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2018), and Regulation 32.2, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 32.2 (2019); Section 4d of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d (2018); Section 5h(a)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7b-3(1) 

(2018), and Regulation 37.3(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 37.3(a)(1) (2019); Regulation 166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2019); 

and Regulation 42.2, 17 C.F.R. § 42.2 (2019). 

B. An order of permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and any other person or entity 

associated with them, from engaging in conduct described above, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6, 6c(b), 6d, 

and 7b-3(1), and 17 C.F.R. §§ 32.2, 37.3(a)(1), 42.2, 48.3 and 166.3. 

C. An order of permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and any of their affiliates, 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 37 of 40
38

agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation 

with Defendants, from directly or indirectly: 

(i) trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that term is defined in 

Section la of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(40) (2018)); 

(ii) entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as that term is 

defined in Commission Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2019)), for Defendants’ 

own accounts or for any account in which they have a direct or indirect 

interest; 

(iii) having any commodity interests traded on Defendants’ behalf; 

(iv) 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; 

(v) soliciting, receiving, or accepting any funds from any person for the purpose of 

purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

(vi) 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 as 

provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2019); 

(vii) acting as a principal (as that term is defined in Commission Regulation 

3.1(a), 17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2019)), agent or any other officer or employee of 

any person registered, exempted from registration or required to be registered 

with the Commission except as provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9); 

D. An order directing Defendants and any third party transferee and/or successors 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 38 of 40
39

thereof, to disgorge to any officer appointed or directed by the Court all benefits received 

including, but not limited to, trading profits, revenues, salaries, commissions, loans, or fees 

derived, directly or indirectly, from acts or practices which constitute violations of the Act as 

described herein, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; 

E. An order directing Defendants and any successors thereof, to rescind, pursuant to 

such procedures as the Court may order, all contracts and agreements, whether implied or 

express, entered into between, with , or amount Defendants and any customer or investor whose 

funds were received by Defendants a result of the acts and practices that constituted violations of 

the Act, as described herein; 

F. An order requiring Defendants to make full restitution by making whole each and 

every customer or investor whose funds were received or utilized by them in violation of the 

provisions of the Act as described herein, including pre-judgment interest; 

G. An order directing Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties, to be assessed by the 

Court, in an amount not more than the penalty prescribed by Section 6c(d)(1) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1) (2018), as adjusted for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties 

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

VII, Section 701, see Commission Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2019), for each violation 

of the Act, as described herein; 

H. An order requiring Defendants to pay costs and fees as permitted by 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1920 and 2412(a)(2) (2006); and 

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 39 of 40
40

I. Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. 

Dated: October 1 , 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

By its attorneys: 

/s/ Carlin Metzger 

Carlin Metzger (Pro Hac Vice Pending) 

Senior Trial Attorney 

cmetzger@cftc.gov 

312-596-0536 

Brigitte Weyls (Pro Hac Vice Pending) 

Senior Trial Attorney 

bweyls@cftc.gov 

Joseph Platt (Pro Hac Vice Pending) 

Trial Attorney 

jplatt@cftc.gov 

Elizabeth N. Pendleton (Pro Hac Vice Pending) 

Chief Trial Attorney 

ependleton@cftc.gov 

Scott R. Williamson (Pro Hac Vice Pending) 

Deputy Regional Counsel 

swilliamson@cftc.gov 

Robert T. Howell 

Deputy Director 

rhowell@cftc.gov 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1100 

Chicago, Illinois 60661 

(312) 596-0700 

(312) 596-0714 (fax) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 40 of 40