CFTC bid to vacate order against Winklevoss’ crypto exchange ‘very unusual,’ ex-agency chief says

Movement made by Commodity Futures Trading Commission It was “very unusual” to rescind a consent order against cryptocurrency exchange Gemini Trust, a former CFTC chairman told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” on Thursday.

Former chairman Tim Massad also said he did not know the details of the CFTC’s lawsuit against Gemini, founded by the Winklevoss twins, because it came after his tenure at the agency, but noted that CFTC staff during his tenure “only brought strong cases.”

The CFTC asked a New York federal court judge on Wednesday to vacate a January 2025 ruling against Gemini that included a $5 million penalty and an injunction prohibiting the company from making false statements to the agency. The order was implemented in the final weeks of President Joe Biden’s administration.

The CFTC is currently led by President Donald Trump appointee Michael Selig, who received donations from 2024 campaign twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss.

“What I will say is that it’s very unusual for the CFTC to do this, to essentially try to overturn the decision in a case that you filed,” Massad told CNBC.

“And the second thing I would say is, in my experience, the CFTC enforcement division was very professional and acted with integrity and care,” he said.

“There were a lot of people who were excellent public servants who made decisions based on the law and the facts, and they only brought cases that had strong merits.”

Avi Perry, the attorney representing Gemini in the CFTC case, said in a statement to CNBC: “The facts are clear. This lawsuit should never have been filed, and we are grateful that the CFTC joined us in righting this wrong.”

The CFTC said in a statement Wednesday that it decided to withdraw the warrant after a “thorough review” of the investigation concluded that “the complaint should not have been filed and would not be within the scope of current standards of practice.”

“Accordingly, the CFTC has determined that continuing to enforce the prospective provisions of the consent decree serves neither the CFTC’s mission nor the public interest,” the agency said. he said.

“The parties now jointly urge the court to vacate the consent decree with respect to the prospective provision because the non-prospective provisions of the consent decree, such as the imposition of civil penalties, have already been satisfied and it would not be equitable to enforce the remaining provisions – including injunctive relief – prospectively.”

— CNBC’s Lora Kolodny contributed to this article.