Judge Dismisses Racketeering Claims Against BitMEX for Excessive Length and Copying

Dismantling the Case: A Judge’s Take

In a decision reminiscent of a bad high school essay, a United States District Judge has thrown out amended racketeering allegations from traders against HDR Global Trading, the parent company of the infamous crypto derivatives exchange, BitMEX. On September 7, Judge William Orrick decided that the traders’ legal arguments sounded more like they were cut and pasted from someone else’s homework than a serious legal complaint.

Allegations of Market Manipulation and More

The traders, including a certain group called BMA LLC—once publicly known as “Bitcoin Manipulation Abatement”—accused BitMEX of market manipulation and various other nefarious acts under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Commodity Exchange Act. However, Judge Orrick wasn’t buying it. After examining the filings littered with acronyms and legal jargon, he simply remarked that no plausible claim could be uncovered.

The Decision: Length Over Clarity

Orrick was particularly unimpressed by the prolix nature of the complaints. Let’s keep it real—nobody wants to read a novel when they come to court. The previous version of the complaint was a staggering 237 pages long, which is more than most weekend reads. Yet, the plaintiffs decided that was insufficient and cranked out an amended version that expanded to 378 pages and over 1,000 paragraphs. Talk about overkill! If you thought 600 paragraphs were excessive, you were in for a shocking sequel.

Copy, Paste, and Dismiss

But the judge’s critique didn’t stop there. He noted that many allegations were merely regurgitated from a different case in New York, effectively turning the courtroom into a plagiarism seminar. Judge Orrick called out this blatant copying, declaring, “I will not consider those copied allegations.” It appears the court isn’t fond of legal R&D that involves lifting text from other lawsuits.

Judicial Warnings Ignored

Despite previous warnings about verbosity, it seems the traders’ legal team was hell-bent on violating “keep it simple” court etiquette. Even after the judge’s prior admonishments, they charged ahead, ignoring the suggestions like a rebellious teenager. After all, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again—except, perhaps, in this case. The judge made it clear that no further amendments would be entertained.

Fallout and Future Moves

The plaintiffs are not left high and dry, though. Lawyers for the individual traders dropped the initial complaint without prejudice and are planning a fresh start in a California state court soon. It seems they think the state court may be more lenient on their multi-paper masterpieces.

Interestingly, at one point during the turmoil, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Pavel Pogodin, even offered to give Judge Orrick a lesson on cryptocurrency basics. Talk about confidence! Of course, Orrick politely declined, sticking to the more pressing issue of whether or not they had a capable claim with a touch of humorous flair: “focus on the task at hand.”