CFTC Asserts Jurisdiction Over Bitcoin
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) recently entered an order finding that Coinflip, Inc. d/b/a Derivabit (“Coinflip”), an unregistered Bitcoin options trading platform, and its founder and CEO, Francisco Riordan (“Riordan”) violated Sections 4c(b) and 5h(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), and Commission Regulations 32.2 and 37.3(a)(1). The action is based on the Commission’s finding, for the first time, that “Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are encompassed in the definition [of ‘commodity’] and are properly defined as commodities.” The Commission made this finding without discussion other than to note that Section 1a(9) of the CEA defines “commodity” to include “all services, rights, and interests in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in.” The Commission did not impose penalties against either respondent.
The Commission found that between March 2014 and July 2014, Coinflip “conducted activity related to commodity option transactions, offered to enter into commodity option transactions, and/or confirmed the existence of commodity options transactions,” in violation of Section 4c(b) of the CEA and Commission Regulation 32.2. The Commission also found that Coinflip violated Section 5h(a)(1) of the CEA and Commission Regulation 37.3(a)(1) by operating a facility for the trading of swaps without registering the facility as a swap execution facility or designated contract market.
This case is notable because the Commission asserted its jurisdiction over Bitcoin and presumptively other alternative currency markets for the first time. The Commission named Riordan individually as a Respondent, which is business as usual, and found Riordan to have violated multiple provisions of the CEA and Commission Regulations, but it did not impose any penalty for those violations. The Commission simply required Riordan (and Coinflip) to cease and desist from violating the specific CEA provisions and Commission Regulations discussed in the Order. This is a very atypical enforcement result and suggests the importance and value that the CFTC attached to establishing a record of its enforcement authority over these new markets.
To discuss these matters further, please contact:
Brian Walsh +1-202-661-7030 firstname.lastname@example.org
Robertson Park +1-202-661-7022 email@example.com
© 2015 Murphy & McGonigle P.C. Murphy & McGonigle is providing this communication solely for educational and informational purposes, and receipt of this publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The distribution of this publication does not constitute an offer by Murphy & McGonigle or the attorneys listed above to provide legal advice or other service. This publication is not intended to and does not provide legal or other advice. To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this publication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
- SEC Adopts Rule 15l-1 to Require Broker-Dealers to Act in Best Interest of Retail Customers
- CLIENT ALERT: Opportunity to submit pre-rulemaking comments on the California Consumer Privacy Act
- Tenth Circuit Extends SEC’s Geographic Reach. Just How Far Is Uncertain.
- SEC Adopts Amendments to Regulation NMS to Expand Disclosure
- How to Avoid Liability for Halo Statements