简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
BitMex Co-Founders Plead Guilty to Breaking U.S Bank Secrecy Act
Abstract:Last year, BitMEX paid a $100m penalty for breaching U.S laws. This week, co-founders Delo and Hayes each paid $10m after pleading guilty overnight.

BitMEX co-founders Delo and Hayes plead guilty to violating the Bank Secrecy Act
In 2021, crypto derivatives trading platform BitMEX paid a $100m penalty for breaches of U.S laws
Increased regulatory scrutiny will likely see more hefty fines on the horizon
Co-founders Arthur Hayes, Ben Delo, and Samuel Reed established BitMEX, a P2P crypto trading platform in 2014. The platform supports crypto derivatives trading, including futures and margin trading.
BitMEX Co-Founders Plead Guilty
Overnight, the U.S Department of Justice announced that BitMEX co-founders Delo and Hayes have pleaded guilty to violating the US Bank Secrecy Act. “Hayes and Delo each agreed to pay a $10 million criminal fine representing pecuniary gain derived from the offense.”
In 2020, co-founders Hayes, Delo, and Reed were accused of operating an unregistered trading platform. The Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) accused Hayes, Delo, and Reed of violating CFTC rules reportedly that included anti-money laundering and KYC regulations.
For evading anti-money laundering requirements, co-founders Hayes, Delo, and Reed, as well as Greg Dwyer (head of business development), were also charged with violating the Bank Secrecy Act.
BitMEX Pays $100m Penalty
In August 2021, U.S federal courts entered a consent order against 5 companies charged with operating the BitMEX crypto derivatives trading platform.
The order required the five entities to pay a $100m penalty in addition to prohibiting BitMEX from further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTCs regulations.
According to the order, BitMex operated as a common enterprise from at least November 2014 to October 2020. The platform reportedly offered leveraged trading of crypto derivatives to retail and institutional clients. BitMEX was aware of U.S customer access to the platform.
In the U.S, BitMEX violated rules under the CEA by enabling the trading or processing of swaps without approval as a Designated Contract Market (DCM) or a Swap Execution Facility (SEF).
Regulatory Scrutiny Keeps Exchanges in Focus
Since late last year, regulators have increased scrutiny of the crypto market. This month BlockFi paid a $100m penalty in an SEC settlement. In November 2021, the SEC alleged that BlockFis high-yielding accounts were unregistered securities.
While the conclusion to the BlockFi case was swift, the SEC v Ripple Lab (XRP) case has been ongoing since late 2020.
Other exchanges that have recently faced U.S regulatory scrutiny include Coinbase (COIN) and Binance (BNB).

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.
Read more

In-Depth Review of MH Markets Regulation and Compliance Profile – What Traders Should Really Know
This in-depth analysis provides a data-driven examination of the MH Markets regulation and compliance profile. Drawing primarily on verified data from the global broker inquiry app WikiFX, supplemented by public records, we will dissect the broker's multi-jurisdictional licensing, evaluate the real-world protections offered to traders, and interpret the warnings and ratings that define its standing in the competitive forex and CFD landscape.

In-Depth Uniglobe Markets Regulation and License Overview: A Trader's Due Diligence Report
This in-depth overview will conduct a thorough Uniglobe Markets regulatory status and financial authority check. By dissecting data from regulatory bodies, corporate registries, and user-reported experiences, we will provide a clear, data-driven analysis of the protections—or lack thereof—afforded to clients. The central question we aim to answer is whether Uniglobe Markets meets the stringent safety standards required by serious, long-term traders.

Scandinavian Capital Markets Exposed: Traders Cry Foul Play Over Trade Manipulation & Fund Scams
Does Scandinavian Capital Markets stipulate heavy margin requirements to keep you out of positions? Have you been deceived by their price manipulation tactic? Have you lost all your investments as the broker did not have risk management in place? Were you persuaded to bet on too risky and scam-ridden instruments by the broker officials? These are some burning issues traders face here. In this Scandinavian Capital Markets review guide, we have discussed these issues. Read on to explore them.

Uniglobe Markets Deposits and Withdrawals Explained: A Data-Driven Analysis for Traders
For any experienced trader, the integrity of a broker isn't just measured in pips and spreads; it's fundamentally defined by the reliability and transparency of its financial operations. The ability to deposit and, more importantly, withdraw capital seamlessly is the bedrock of trust between a trader and their brokerage. When this process is fraught with delays, ambiguity, or outright failure, it undermines the entire trading relationship. This in-depth analysis focuses on Uniglobe Markets, a broker that has been operational for 5-10 years and presents itself as a world-class trading partner. We will move beyond the marketing claims to scrutinize the realities of its funding mechanisms. By examining available data on Uniglobe Markets deposits and withdrawals, we aim to provide a clear, evidence-based picture for traders evaluating this broker for long-term engagement. Our investigation will be anchored primarily in verified records and user exposure reports to explain the Uniglobe Mar
