Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 86 EXHIBIT E Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 86 1 J. Noah Hagey, Esq. (SBN: 262331) donaldhoward@example.com 2 Andrew Levine, Esq. (SBN: 278426) ELECTRONICALLY donaldhoward@example.com 3 BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP FILED Superior Court of California, 351 California Street, Tenth Floor County of San Francisco 4 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 599-0210 10/23/2020 Clerk of the Court 5 Facsimile: 330.835.1750 BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ Deputy Clerk 6 Douglas Curran, Esq. (pro hac vice) donaldhoward@example.com 7 BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP 7 Times Square, Twenty-Seventh Floor 8 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (646) 829-9403 9 Facsimile: (646) 829-9403 10 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS FRANK AMATO, RGB COIN LTD., 11 and ELFIO GUIDO CAPONE on behalf of the G AND M CAPONE TRUST 12 13 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 16 17 Case No: CGC-19-581267 18 FRANK AMATO, RGB COIN LTD., and ELFIO GUIDO CAPONE on behalf DECLARATION OF J. NOAH HAGEY 19 of the G AND M CAPONE TRUST, Hearing 20 Plaintiffs, Date: Monday, October 26, 2020 Time: 9:15 a.m. 21 v. Dept.: 304 Judge: The Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo 22 HDR GLOBAL TRADING LIMITED, d/b/a BITMEX; ARTHUR HAYES; ABS Complaint filed: Dec. 4, 2019 23 GLOBAL TRADING LIMITED; and DOES SAC filed: August 18, 2020 1-10, 24 Trial Date: None Set Defendants. 25 REDACTED 26 27 28 Case No. CGC-19-581267 DECLARATION OF J. NOAH HAGEY Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 86 1 I, J. Noah Hagey, Esq., declare: 2 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice in the State of California. I am a named 3 partner at the law firm BraunHagey & Borden LLP, counsel of record for Plaintiffs Frank Amato, 4 RGB Coin Ltd., and Elfio Guido Capone on behalf of the G and M Capone Trust in the above- 5 captioned action (together, “Plaintiffs”), and I provide this declaration in accordance with 6 California Rule of Court 3.1202. I base this declaration on facts within my personal knowledge 7 and from my discussions with other attorneys at BraunHagey & Borden LLP who have worked on 8 this case, and if called upon to testify, I could and would testify competently thereto. 9 2. On October 22, 2020, at 3:04 p.m. PT, via email, I informed Jones Day, counsel of 10 record for Defendants HDR Global Trading Limited (“HDR”) and ABS Global Trading Limited 11 (“ABS”), and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, counsel of record for Defendant Arthur 12 Hayes (“Hayes”), that Plaintiffs would be moving for ex parte relief at 9:15 a.m. on October 26, 13 2020, in Dept. 304 of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, in connection 14 with the above-captioned action. I further informed Defendants that Plaintiffs’ ex parte application 15 sought a temporary protective order in aid of attachment and related relief, and inquired whether 16 Defendants would oppose such application. Defendants stated that they would. 17 3. I and Douglas Curran, another partner at BraunHagey & Borden LLP working on 18 this case, have repeatedly asked Defendants’ counsel for information regarding their clients’ 19 expatriation and dissipation of assets. Defendants’ counsel has so far refused to provide any 20 substantive donaldhoward@example.com. 21 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Department of 22 Justice’s indictment against Hayes, Benjamin Delo, Samuel Reed, and Gregory Dwyer, captioned 23 United States v. Hayes, et al., 20-cr-500 (S.D.N.Y.), released on October 1, 2020. 24 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Commodity Futures 25 Trading Commission’s complaint against HDR, ABS, Hayes, 100x Holdings Limited, Shine Effort 26 Inc Limited, HDR Global Services (Bermuda) Limited, Ben Peter Delo, and Samuel Reed, filed on 27 October 1, 2020, styled CFTC v. HDR Global Trading Ltd., et al. 20-cv-8132 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on 28 October 1, 2020. 1 Case No. CGC-19-581267 DECLARATION OF J. NOAH HAGEY Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 4 of 86 1 6. On October 15, 2020, following (i) SOSV’s production of documents showing a 2 clear and plain right to Plaintiffs’ recovery, and (ii) the filing of the CFTC and DOJ actions, Mr. 3 Curran emailed a series of questions to Defendants’ counsel in an effort to determine whether 4 Defendants were, in fact, expatriating assets. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct 5 copy of Mr. Curran’s October 15 email to Defendants. 6 7. Defendants’ counsel refused to provide those answers promptly, and instead 7 suggested the parties meet and confer about those matters on October 19, 2020. 8 8. During the October 19 meet and confer, Defendants’ counsel simply stated they 9 were “not prepared” to discuss the issues, and claimed they needed additional time to confer with 10 their clients. 11 9. The parties then conferred again on October 21; this time, Defense counsel declared 12 that the questions posed in Plaintiffs’ October 15 email were “intrusive” and again refused to 13 provide any substantive information. Defense counsel stated, however, that they would continue to 14 confer with their clients and would consider providing some undefined information on October 23. 15 10. Plaintiffs then followed up on October 21 with an email that boils down to a single, 16 basic request: “[P]lease provide a simple schedule or summary of all distributions of any sort – 17 whether dividends or otherwise – that HDR made to its shareholders from June 2015 to the present, 18 including the dates and amounts of those distributions.” Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and 19 correct copy of an email chain between counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants dated October 21, 20 2020. 21 11. Defendants did not respond. 22 12. Plaintiffs thereafter informed Defendants that their inability to provide even the 23 most basic information about the improper movement of assets only added to Plaintiffs’ well- 24 founded concerns, and left them no choice but to seek this relief. 25 13. In response to Plaintiffs’ subpoena, third-party SOSV has produced several unitized 26 PDF files bearing bates stamps between SOSV - 1 through SOSV – 6895. Following Plaintiffs’ 27 second motion to enforce litigants’ rights, which was granted by Judge Anklowitz sitting in New 28 Jersey on October 16, 2020, SOSV has produced 6,109 native documents without bates stamps. 2 Case No. CGC-19-581267 DECLARATION OF J. NOAH HAGEY Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 5 of 86 1 Plaintiffs are still reviewing those native documents, but a preliminary review has already shed a 2 significant amount of light on the communications between SOSV and HDR since 2015. In my 3 review of the documents, 4 5 6 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of an email that appears to 7 have been sent by 8 9 10 11 12 This email thread was produced by 13 SOSV and is bates stamped SOSV - 2671–72. 14 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a document titled 15 16 and is bates stamped SOSV - 330.835.1750. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of an email that appears to 19 have been sent by 20 21 This email thread was produced by SOSV and is bates stamped SOSV - 1506–10. 22 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of an email that appears to 23 have been sent by 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No. CGC-19-581267 DECLARATION OF J. NOAH HAGEY Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 6 of 86 1 This email thread was produced by SOSV and is bates stamped SOSV - 2 2136–37. 3 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of an email within an email 4 chain that appears to have been sent by 5 6 7 8 9 This 10 email thread was produced by SOSV and is bates stamped SOSV - 330.835.1750. I have also reviewed text messages and whatsapp messages between 12 13 These messages were produced as screenshots from the 14 mobile device of and were not produced with bates numbers. 15 20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of a text message chain 16 between 17 18 19 20 21 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of a text message chain 22 between 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Case No. CGC-19-581267 DECLARATION OF J. NOAH HAGEY Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 7 of 86 1 2 3 22. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of the CFTC’s press release 4 on October 1, 2020 regarding its complaint against BitMEX and its founders, available at 5 https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8270-20. 6 23. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of an email that appears to 7 have been sent from 8 9 This email thread was produced by SOSV and is bates stamped SOSV - 2641. 10 24. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of an email that appears to 11 have been sent from 12 13 This email thread was produced by SOSV and 14 is bates stamped SOSV - 2670. 15 16 17 I swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 18 true and correct. 19 Dated: October 23, 2020 By: J. Noah Hagey, Esq. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Case No. CGC-19-581267 DECLARATION OF J. NOAH HAGEY Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 8 of 86 EXHIBIT 1 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 9 of 86  Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 10 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 11 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 12 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 13 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 14 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 15 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 16 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 17 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 18 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 19 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 20 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 21 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 22 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 23 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 24 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 25 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 26 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 27 of 86 Case 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document 84-6 Filed 10/30/20 Page 28 of 86 EXHIBIT 2 Case Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document184-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 Page 10/30/20 1 of 29 Page 40 of 86 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) ) Commodity Futures Trading Commission, ) CIVIL ACTION NO: 20-cv-8132 ) Plaintiff, ) ) Hon.____________________ v. ) ) Jury Trial Demanded 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. ) 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. 1 Case Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document184-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 Page 10/30/20 2 of 30 Page 40 of 86 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 2 Case Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document184-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 Page 10/30/20 3 of 31 Page 40 of 86 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 off- exchange 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). 3 Case Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document184-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 Page 10/30/20 4 of 32 Page 40 of 86 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. 4 Case Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document184-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 Page 10/30/20 5 of 33 Page 40 of 86 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. 5 Case Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document184-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 Page 10/30/20 6 of 34 Page 40 of 86 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 6 Case Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document184-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 Page 10/30/20 7 of 35 Page 40 of 86 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). 7 Case Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document184-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 Page 10/30/20 8 of 36 Page 40 of 86 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 8 Case Case 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document184-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 Page 10/30/20 9 of 37 Page 40 of 86 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) 9 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 10 of38 40of 86 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. § 7b- 3(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 10 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 11 of39 40of 86 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 11 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 12 of40 40of 86 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. 12 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 13 of41 40of 86 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 (non- ECP) 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. 13 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 14 of42 40of 86 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. 14 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 15 of43 40of 86 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. 15 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 16 of44 40of 86 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, 16 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 17 of45 40of 86 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. 17 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 18 of46 40of 86 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. 18 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 19 of47 40of 86 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 19 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 20 of48 40of 86 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, 20 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 21 of49 40of 86 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 21 CaseCase 1:20-cv-08132 Document 3:20-cv-03345-WHO Document1 84-6 FiledFiled 10/01/20 PagePage 10/30/20 22 of50 40of 86 then we will ask them to provide alternative verification. If they
{'dataset': 'courtlistener_docket_entry_documents'}