The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Gemini Trust Company filed a joint motion in late May 2026 asking a federal court to vacate a January 2025 consent order. The order required Gemini to pay $5 million and accept a permanent injunction, but both sides now argue the underlying enforcement case was flawed.
The request was filed under Rule 60(b) and relies on an internal CFTC review and court documents produced in May 2026. The filing says continued enforcement would be inequitable, inconsistent with current agency policy and contrary to the public interest.
CFTC Says the Original Case Was Unsupported
The joint motion and CFTC memorandum dated May 27–28 identify three main reasons for unwinding the settlement. Regulators now say the original complaint lacked sufficient evidentiary support, including proof for allegations that Gemini made materially false or misleading statements about its bitcoin futures business.
The agency also questioned whether scienter was properly established. That reassessment weakens a central pillar of the 2022 enforcement case, and the CFTC says the matter would not be brought under its current priorities.
The filing also cites credibility concerns involving a former Gemini chief operating officer whose testimony supported parts of the complaint. It further alleges that relevant evidence was withheld from a commissioner before the vote authorizing the enforcement action.
A third issue involves Gemini’s Designated Contract Market application. The motion asserts that enforcement staff improperly delayed licensing review, creating pressure that helped produce the original settlement.
Enforcement Priorities Shift Toward Bad Actors
The filing notes that Gemini itself had been a victim of fraud, with customers identified in the motion allegedly defrauding the firm of about $7.5 million. The CFTC now frames that distinction as important, saying current priorities focus more on individuals who victimize digital-asset investors.
The memorandum states that the consent order “no longer reflects what the CFTC considers a fair resolution.” That language positions the motion as a corrective step, not merely a negotiated attempt to reduce Gemini’s regulatory burden.
If granted, vacatur would remove the injunction and regulatory stigma attached to the January 2025 order. For Gemini, the ruling would materially change the legacy of the case, especially for counterparties assessing regulatory history and platform risk.
The filing carries broader implications. Firms that settled under earlier CFTC enforcement approaches may review whether similar factual or procedural issues exist, particularly where internal agency reassessment could support Rule 60(b) relief.
The outcome remains in the court’s hands. A favorable ruling could create a procedural reference point for other digital-asset firms, while an adverse decision would leave the January 2025 consent order intact.
