Judge Keeps Gemini's $5M CFTC Penalty and Injunction in Force

Gemini's $5 million penalty and its permanent injunction survive. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, denied a joint motion by Gemini Trust Company and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to vacate the January 2025 consent order, in a ruling issued on October 15, 2026.

The penalty is the settled part: Gemini has already paid the $5 million, and the fight was over the provisions that keep running. The permanent injunction remains in force, and it governs what Gemini tells the CFTC. That is the piece that follows the exchange into whatever it asks the regulator for next.

What the Injunction Still Binds

The consent order bars Gemini from making false or misleading statements to the CFTC. That restriction did not move when the judge ruled, so the exchange keeps a compliance obligation that outlives the fine.

A 2017 Statement and a 2022 Lawsuit

The dispute goes back to 2017, when Gemini made statements to the CFTC during a Bitcoin futures self-certification review that the agency alleged were false or misleading. The CFTC filed a formal complaint in June 2022.

Roughly three weeks before a scheduled trial, Gemini agreed to settle. The consent order was entered in January 2025, and Gemini neither admitted nor denied the allegations in it.

Why the CFTC Joined Its Own Defendant

By the time the motion was filed, the agency had changed its mind about the case. An internal CFTC review concluded the original complaint should not have been filed, and the agency said the case would not have been brought under its current enforcement standards. In May 2026, the CFTC joined Gemini in asking the court for relief from the judgment.

The two sides went to Hellerstein under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the narrow route for reopening a judgment that is already final.

Why Regret Was Not Enough

Hellerstein held that arguments about a whistleblower's credibility, litigation tactics and wider changes in digital asset policy do not meet Rule 60's strict standard. Post-settlement material, in his reading, did not create the change in factual circumstances the rule requires.

He allowed that the extra material Gemini received after settling might have left it regretting the deal. Regret, he said, is not enough to show the circumstances changed in a way that made the agreement unfair.

The Appeal Question Is Open

It is not yet known whether either side will appeal. The 30-day window and any route to the Second Circuit were not confirmed by the sources available for this article, and neither party's next step is established.

For now the order from January 2025 stands as written: $5 million paid, and an injunction Gemini carries into its next round of dealings with the agency.