UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

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, 

BENJAMIN DELO, and SAMUEL REED, 

Defendants 

Case No. 1:20-cv-08132 

Hon. Laura Taylor Swain 

CONSENT ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL MONETARY 

PENALTY, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANT ARTHUR HAYES 

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 1, 2020, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” 

or “CFTC”) filed a 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” (collectively “BitMEX”), as well as BitMEX’s co-founders Arthur Hayes 

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

seeking injunctive and other equitable relief, as well as the imposition of civil penalties, for 

violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1–26, and the Commission’s 

Regulations (“Regulations”) promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2021). 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 19
2 

(“Complaint,” ECF No. 1.)1 On August 10, 2021, the district court entered a consent order of 

permanent injunction against the five defendant companies doing business as BitMEX (ECF 

No. 62), leaving the action pending against the three individual defendants, Hayes, Delo and 

Reed. 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS 

To effect settlement of all charges alleged in the Complaint against Defendant Arthur 

Hayes (“Hayes”) without a trial on the merits or any further judicial proceedings, Hayes: 

1. Consents to the entry of this Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil 

Monetary Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief (“Consent Order”); 

2. Affirms that he has read and agreed to this Consent Order voluntarily, and that no 

promise, other than as specifically contained herein, or threat, has been made by the CFTC or 

any member, officer, agent, or representative thereof, or by any other person, to induce consent 

to this Consent Order; 

3. Acknowledges proper service of the summons and Complaint; 

4. Admits the jurisdiction of this Court over him for purposes of this settlement, and 

the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1; 

 

1

 On October 1, 2020, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York charged 

Hayes, Delo, and Reed, along with Greg Dwyer, with: (1) willfully causing a financial institution 

to violate the Bank Secrecy Act, in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5318(h)(1) and (l), 5322(a) and (c); 

31 C.F.R. §§ 1026.210 and 1026.220; and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and (2) conspiracy to commit the same 

offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. United States v. Hayes, et al., 20 CR 500 (JGK) 

(S.D.N.Y.). On February 24, 2022, Hayes entered a guilty plea to Count One of the indictment. 

Delo and Reed have also entered guilty pleas to Count One of the indictment. Hayes is 

scheduled to be sentenced on May 18, 2022. The criminal case remains pending against Dwyer 

as of the date of this Consent Order. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 19
3 

5. Admits the jurisdiction of the Commission over the conduct and transactions at 

issue in this action pursuant to the Act; 

6. Admits that venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e); 

7. Waives: 

(a) Any and all claims that he may possess under the Equal Access to Justice 

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and/or the rules promulgated 

by the Commission in conformity therewith, Part 148 of the Regulations, 

17 C.F.R. pt. 148 (2021), relating to, or arising from, this action; 

(b) Any and all claims that he may possess under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, tit. II, 

§§ 201–253, 110 Stat. 847, 857–74 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412 and in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C. and 15 U.S.C.), relating to, or 

arising from, this action; 

(c) Any claim of Double Jeopardy based upon the institution of this action or 

the entry in this action of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty or 

any other relief, including this Consent Order; and 

(d) Any and all rights of appeal from this action; 

8. Consents to the continued jurisdiction of this Court over him for the purpose of 

implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of this Consent Order and for any other 

purpose relevant to this action, even if Hayes now or in the future resides outside this judicial 

district; 

9. Agrees that he will not oppose enforcement of this Consent Order on the ground, 

if any exists, that it fails to comply with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

hereby waives any objection based thereon; 

10. Agrees that neither he nor any of his agents or employees under his authority or 

control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any 

allegation in the Complaint or the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Consent Order, 

or creating or tending to create the impression that the Complaint and/or this Consent Order is 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 3 of 19
4 

without a factual basis; provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall affect his: 

(a) testimonial obligations, or (b) right to take positions in other proceedings to which the 

Commission is not a party. Hayes shall comply with this agreement, and shall undertake all 

steps necessary to ensure that all of his agents and/or employees under his authority or control 

understand and comply with this agreement; 

11. By consenting to the entry of this Consent Order, neither admits nor denies the 

allegations of the Complaint or any Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Consent 

Order, except the admissions in Paragraphs 4 and 5 above; 

12. Admits the facts set forth during his February 24, 2022 plea allocution in United 

States v. Hayes et al., 20 CR 500 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), a copy of which is attached to the parties’ 

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Order; 

13. Consents to the use of the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Consent 

Order in this proceeding and in any other proceeding brought by the Commission or to which the 

Commission is a party or claimant, and agrees that they shall be taken as true and correct and be 

given preclusive effect therein, without further proof; 

14. Does not consent, however, to the use of this Consent Order, or the Findings of 

Fact or Conclusions of Law herein, as the sole basis for any other proceeding, including a 

proceeding in which the registration of any Defendant may be affected, brought by the 

Commission or to which the Commission is a party other than a: proceeding in bankruptcy or 

receivership; or proceeding to enforce the terms of this Consent Order; 

15. Does not consent to the use of this Consent Order, or the Findings of Fact or 

Conclusions of Law herein, by any other party in any other proceeding; and 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 4 of 19
5 

16. Agrees that no provision of this Consent Order shall in any way limit or impair 

the ability of any other person or entity to seek any legal or equitable remedy, if there is a basis 

in law and fact to do so, against Hayes in any other proceeding; provided, however, that Hayes 

does not agree that any provision of this Consent Order inures to the benefit of, or confers rights 

on, any other person or entity to seek any legal or equitable remedy that does not exist 

independently of this Consent Order, or that this Consent Order or any provision herein is 

admissible in any proceeding not involving the Commission. 

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 The Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that there is good cause for the entry 

of this Consent Order and that there is no just reason for delay. The Court therefore directs the 

entry of the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, permanent injunction, and equitable 

relief pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, as set forth herein. The findings and 

conclusions in this Consent Order are not binding on any other party to this action. 

A. Findings of Fact 

The Parties to this Consent Order 

17. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is the independent federal 

regulatory agency that is charged by Congress with administering and enforcing the Act and the 

Regulations. 

18. Defendant Arthur Hayes is a co-founder and co-owner of BitMEX. Hayes has 

never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

The BitMEX Trading Platform and Products 

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

cryptocurrency derivatives, including derivatives on bitcoin, ether, and litecoin. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 5 of 19
6 

20. From November 2014 to October 1, 2020 (the “Relevant Period”), BitMEX 

operated as a common enterprise through a number of affiliated entities, including HDR, 100x, 

ABS, Shine, and HDR Services, acting through their officers, agents, or employees. 

21. During the Relevant Period, BitMEX offered leveraged trading of cryptocurrency 

derivatives to retail (non-eligible contract participants (“non-ECPs”)) and institutional customers 

through BitMEX’s website, www.bitmex.com, and by direct connection to its trading engine 

servers via the BitMEX application programming interface (“API”). Customers in the U.S. 

placed orders to buy or sell contracts directly through BitMEX’s user interfaces, including the 

website and API. During the Relevant Period, BitMEX acted as the counterparty to certain 

transactions on its platform. 

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

U.S. dollar leveraged swap product.” 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.” 

23. During the Relevant Period, BitMEX conducted certain components of its 

business and maintained a presence in the U.S., including maintaining an office in New York 

from late 2017 until early 2019 and establishing a San Francisco office in 2017. 

24. During the Relevant Period, BitMEX solicited orders from U.S.-based customers 

for futures, options, and swaps through its website and on social media that were available to and 

accessed by U.S.-based customers. 

25. Throughout the Relevant Period, BitMEX’s U.S. customers were able to access 

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

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 6 of 19
7 

customers’ own computers located in the U.S. via a virtual private network (“VPN”). BitMEX 

was aware that U.S. customers used VPNs to access the BitMEX platform. 

26. During the Relevant Period, BitMEX offered, entered into, confirmed the 

execution of, and otherwise conducted activities relating to commodity option transactions in 

interstate commerce. These transactions were not executed on any registered board of trade, nor 

was BitMEX registered as a foreign board of trade. 

27. During the Relevant Period, BitMEX solicited or accepted orders for the purchase 

or sale of commodities for future delivery; engaged in soliciting or accepting orders for swaps; 

engaged in soliciting or accepting orders for retail commodity transactions, and/or acted as a 

counterparty to those transactions; and, in connection with these activities, accepted money, 

securities, or property, including bitcoin, to margin, guarantee, or secure resulting trades on the 

BitMEX platform. In accordance with Section 1(a)(47)(iii) and (vi) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 1a(47) (iii), (vi), the swaps solicited or accepted by BitMEX included “perpetual swaps” or 

“perpetual contracts” on bitcoin, ether, and litecoin. During the Relevant Period, BitMEX 

operated a facility for the trading of swaps—that is, 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—on digital assets including bitcoin, ether, and 

litecoin without registering with the CFTC as a designated contract market or a swap execution 

facility. 

28. During the Relevant Period, BitMEX employed an inadequate supervisory system 

and failed to perform its supervisory duties diligently. Among other things, BitMEX failed to 

implement a customer identification program (“CIP”), including know-your-customer (“KYC”) 

procedures to identify U.S. persons using the BitMEX platform—or determine the true identity 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 7 of 19
8 

of the vast majority of its customers, whether from the U.S. or elsewhere. BitMEX also failed to 

implement an adequate anti-money laundering (“AML”) program, which is required to prevent 

or detect, among other things, terrorist financing or other criminal activity, and failed to 

implement procedures to determine whether a customer appears on lists of known or suspected 

terrorists or terrorist organizations such as those issued by the Treasury Department’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). 

Hayes’ Control Over BitMEX

29. During the Relevant Period, Hayes, along with others, controlled the operations of 

BitMEX. Hayes was one of three co-founders of BitMEX and he was a co-owner of BitMEX. 

Hayes served as BitMEX’s Chief Executive Officer and was primarily responsible for strategic 

decisions, business development, marketing, and management of the BitMEX enterprise. 

30. Hayes, along with others, was involved in decisions concerning whether to pursue 

regulatory approval for the platform and whether to implement KYC or AML policies and 

procedures. 

31. During the Relevant Period, employees managing BitMEX’s business ultimately 

acted under the direction and control of Hayes, along with others. 

B. Conclusions of Law 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

32. This Court possesses jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

(codifying federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (providing that U.S. 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(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a), 

provides that the Commission may bring actions for injunctive relief or to enforce compliance 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 8 of 19
9 

with the Act or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder in the proper district court of the United 

States whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person has engaged, is engaging, or 

is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Act or 

any rule, regulation, or order thereunder. 

33. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e). 

Violations of the Act by BitMEX and Hayes 

34. As set forth in the Order entered by this Court on August 10, 2021 (ECF No. 62), 

by the conduct described above, Defendants HDR, 100x, ABS, Shine, and HDR Services, all 

acting as a common enterprise and doing business as BitMEX: 

a. offered to enter into, entered into, executed or confirmed the execution of 

transactions involving commodities for future delivery on its platform that was 

not designated as a contract market and thus violated Section 4(a) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 6(a); 

b. offered to enter into, entered into, confirmed the execution of, maintained a 

position in, or otherwise conducted activity related to any transaction in interstate 

commerce that is a commodity option transaction not in compliance with and 

subject to the provisions of this Act, including any Commission rule, regulation, 

or order thereunder and thus violated Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), 

and Regulation 32.2, 17 C.F.R. § 32.2 (2021); 

c. acted as an FCM without being registered with the Commission as required under 

the Act and thus violated Section 4d of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d; 

d. operated a facility for the trading or processing of swaps without being registered 

as a swap execution facility or as a designated contract market and thus violated 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 9 of 19
10 

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

17 C.F.R. § 37.3(a)(1) (2021); 

e. failed to diligently supervise the handling by its officers, employees and agents of 

all commodity interest accounts carried by BitMEX and all other activities 

relating to its business as a registrant and thus violated Regulation 166.3, 

17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2021); and 

f. failed to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and certain related regulations which 

require that a customer identification program be adopted as part of a firm’s Bank 

Secrecy Act compliance program and thus violated Regulation 42.2, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 42.2 (2021). 

35. Hayes is liable as a control person of BitMEX for these violations. Hayes 

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

directly or indirectly, the foregoing acts of BitMEX in violation of the Act; therefore, pursuant to 

Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Hayes is liable for these violations by BitMEX. 

IV. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

36. Based upon and in connection with the foregoing conduct, pursuant to Section 6c 

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, Hayes is permanently restrained, enjoined, and prohibited from 

directly or indirectly:

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

or sale of bitcoin, litecoin, and ether for future delivery; entering into retail 

commodity transactions, or contracts for the purchase or sale of bitcoin, litecoin, 

and ether for future delivery; confirming the execution of retail commodity 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 10 of 19
11 

transactions, or contracts for the purchase or sale of bitcoin, litecoin, and ether 

for future delivery; and 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 such futures transactions on or subject to the rules of a board of trade 

that is designated or registered by the CFTC as a contract market, in violation of 

Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a). 

b. offering to enter into, entering into, confirming the execution of, maintaining 

positions in, or otherwise conducting activities relating to commodity option 

transactions in interstate commerce which do not comply with the Act or any 

Regulations, in violation of Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b), and 

Regulation 32.2, 17 C.F.R. § 32.2 (2021). 

c. engaging in soliciting or accepting orders for the purchase or sale of 

commodities for future delivery, engaging in soliciting or accepting orders for 

swaps, engaging in soliciting or accepting orders for agreements, contracts or 

transactions described in Section 2(c)(2)(D)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(D)(i) (retail commodity transactions), and/or acting as a counterparty in 

agreements, contracts, or transactions described in 7 U.S.C. § 2(C)(2)(D)(i), and, 

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

extended credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure resulting trades, 

in violation of Section 4d of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 11 of 19
12 

d. operating a facility for the trading of swaps—that is, 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—

on digital assets including bitcoin, ether, and litecoin without registering with the 

CFTC as a designated contract market or a swap execution facility in violation of 

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

17 C.F.R. § 37.3(a)(1) (2021).

e. failing to perform supervisory duties diligently, in particular by failing to 

implement a Customer Identification Program, failing to implement and conduct 

Know-Your-Customer procedures, failing to implement Anti-Money Laundering 

procedures, and by failing to ensure that his partners, officers, employees, and 

agents lawfully and appropriately handle all commodity interest accounts, in 

violation of Regulation 166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2021). 

f. failing to implement a Customer Identification Program, failing to implement 

Know-Your-Customer policies and procedures, failing to implement an AntiMoney 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 

the OFAC, in violation of Regulation 42.2, 17 C.F.R. § 42.2 (2021).

V. MONETARY AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

A. Civil Monetary Penalty 

37. Hayes shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of Ten Million Dollars 

($10,000,000) (“CMP Obligation”). If the CMP Obligation is not paid within ten business days 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 12 of 19
13 

of the date of entry of this Consent Order, then post-judgment interest shall accrue on the CMP 

Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this Consent Order and shall be determined by using 

the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Consent Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1961. 

38. Hayes shall pay the CMP Obligation, as well as any post-judgment interest, by 

electronic funds transfer, U.S. postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s check, or bank 

money order. If payment is to be made other than by electronic funds transfer, then the payment 

shall be made payable to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and sent to the address 

below: 

MMAC/ESC/AMK326 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQ Room 266 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

9-amc-ar-cftc@faa.gov 

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Hayes or his agent shall contact Tonia King or 

her successor at the address above to receive payment instructions and shall fully comply with 

those instructions. Hayes or his agent shall accompany payment of the CMP Obligation with a 

cover letter that identifies him as payor and the name and docket number of this proceeding. 

Hayes or his agent shall simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter and the form of 

payment to the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20581. 

B. Provisions Related to Monetary Sanctions 

39. Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the Commission of any partial payment of 

Hayes’ CMP Obligation shall not be deemed a waiver of his obligation to make further payments 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 13 of 19
14 

pursuant to this Consent Order, or a waiver of the Commission’s right to seek to compel payment 

of any remaining balance. 

VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

40. Until such time as Hayes satisfies in full his CMP Obligation, this Consent Order, 

upon the commencement by or against Hayes of insolvency, receivership or bankruptcy 

proceedings or any other proceedings for the settlement of any of Hayes’ debts, all notices to 

creditors required to be furnished to the Commission under Title 11 of the United States Code or 

other applicable law with respect to such insolvency, receivership bankruptcy or other 

proceedings, shall be sent to the address below: 

Secretary of the Commission 

Legal Division 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20581 

41. Notice: All notices and certifications required to be given by any provision in this 

Consent Order, except as set forth in paragraph 40, above, shall be sent by email and by certified 

mail as follows: 

Notice to Commission: 

Robert T. Howell, Deputy Director 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Chicago Regional Office 

Metcalfe Federal Building 

77 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 800 

Chicago, IL 60604 

RHowell@cftc.gov 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 14 of 19
15 

 Notice to Hayes: 

James J. Benjamin Jr. 

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 

One Bryant Park 

Bank of America Tower 

New York, NY 10036-6745 

JBenjamin@AkinGump.com 

All such notices to the Commission shall reference the name and docket number of this action.

42. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Hayes satisfies in full his CMP 

Obligation as set forth in this Consent Order, Hayes shall provide written notice to the 

Commission by certified mail of any change to his telephone number and mailing address within 

ten calendar days of the change. 

43. Entire Agreement and Amendments: This Consent Order incorporates all of the 

terms and conditions of the settlement among the parties hereto to date. Nothing shall serve to 

amend or modify this Consent Order in any respect whatsoever, unless: (a) reduced to writing; 

(b) signed by all parties hereto; and (c) approved by order of this Court. 

44. Invalidation: If any provision of this Consent Order or if the application of any 

provision or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of this Consent Order and the 

application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by the 

holding. 

45. Waiver: The failure of any party to this Consent Order at any time to require 

performance of any provision of this Consent Order shall in no manner affect the right of the 

party at a later time to enforce the same or any other provision of this Consent Order. No waiver 

in one or more instances of the breach of any provision contained in this Consent Order shall be 

deemed to be or construed as a further or continuing waiver of such breach or waiver of the 

breach of any other provision of this Consent Order. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 15 of 19
16 

46. Continuing Jurisdiction of this Court: This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this 

action to ensure compliance with this Consent Order and for all other purposes related to this 

action, including any motion by Hayes to modify or for relief from the terms of this Consent 

Order. 

47. Injunctive and Equitable Relief Provisions: The injunctive and equitable relief 

provisions of this Consent Order shall be binding upon Hayes, upon any person under his 

authority or control, and upon any person who receives actual notice of this Consent Order, by 

personal service, e-mail, facsimile, or otherwise insofar as he or she is acting in active concert or 

participation with Hayes. 

48. Counterparts and Facsimile Execution: This Consent Order may be executed in 

two or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall 

become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties hereto 

and delivered (by facsimile, e-mail, or otherwise) to the other party, it being understood that all 

parties need not sign the same counterpart. Any counterpart or other signature to this Consent 

Order that is delivered by any means shall be deemed for all purposes as constituting good and 

valid execution and delivery by such party of this Consent Order. 

49. Contempt: Hayes understands that the terms of the Consent Order are 

enforceable through contempt proceedings, and that, in any such proceedings he may not 

challenge the validity of this Consent Order. 

50. Agreements and Undertakings: Hayes shall comply with all of the undertakings 

and agreements set forth in this Consent Order. 

Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 16 of 19
Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 17 of 19

There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of the Comi is hereby ordered to enter this 

Consent Order for Injunctive Relief, Civil Moneta,y Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief Against 

Defendant Arthur Hayes fo1ihwith and without fmiher notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED on this ~day of May , 2022. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

17 
Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 18 of 19

CONSENTED TO AND APPROVED BY: 

Defendant Arthur Hayes, 

-

Arthur Hayes 

D 3/28/2022 

ate: --------

Plaintiff Commodity Futures Tradi ng 

Commission 

E~~dl~ 

ChiefTrial Attorney 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

525 West Monroe 

Chicago, IL 6066 I 

ependleton@cftc.gov 

Date: 5 J 3( d ~ 

18 
Case 1:20-cv-08132-LTS-JLC Document 89 Filed 05/05/22 Page 19 of 19

Approved as to Form: 

Jrunes~ 

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 

One Bryant Park 

Bank of America Tower 

New York, NY 10036-6745 

JBenjamin@AkinGump.com 

Attorney for Defendant Arthur Hayes 

19