The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has asked a federal judge to set aside the agency's $5 million penalty and accompanying injunction against Gemini Trust Company, the cryptocurrency exchange founded by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, according to court papers filed on Wednesday.
The CFTC and Gemini said in jointly filed documents that the settlement reached in January 2025 - which required Gemini to pay $5 million and accept an injunction barring it from making false or misleading statements to the CFTC in connection with its bitcoin futures business - should be vacated. The agencies said the settlement was rooted in an enforcement posture that has since changed under the current administration.
Central to the filing is the contention that regulators should never have accused Gemini of making false statements about the integrity of its bitcoin futures operations. The joint filing asserts that the enforcement action was based on a whistleblower account the parties now consider not credible, and that Gemini was in fact the target of fraud perpetrated by the company's former chief operating officer and by two customers who received fraudulent rebates from Gemini.
In pointed language, the filing says the CFTC "resorted to inappropriate tactics" to bring a lawsuit and to "extract a settlement from Gemini." The parties contend that, while the litigation was pending, regulators in effect used their authority to influence other agency decisions - including indications that Gemini would not receive approval for a new prediction market product while the enforcement action remained unresolved.
Gemini later received approval for its prediction market product, known as Gemini Titan, in December 2025. The joint court filing does not make clear whether Gemini will be refunded the $5 million penalty it already paid as part of the January 2025 settlement; the filing notes only that the parties have agreed the settlement should be vacated.
Gemini did not immediately reply to a request for comment late Wednesday.
The filing also highlights political connections tied to the exchange's founders. The Winklevoss brothers each donated $1 million in bitcoin to President Donald Trump's 2024 election campaign, a fact noted in the court documents. The brothers rose to public prominence previously after suing Mark Zuckerberg, alleging he stole their idea for Facebook; that dispute was resolved in 2008 with a settlement of cash and stock.
The joint filing touches on personnel and nomination disputes at the CFTC. It recalls that President Trump's initial nominee to lead the CFTC, Brian Quintenz, earlier accused Tyler Winklevoss of lobbying the White House in an effort to delay his nomination in relation to the CFTC lawsuit. The administration ultimately withdrew Quintenz's nomination and appointed Michael Selig as the agency's new chair.
The court filing frames the parties' current position as corrective: the CFTC and Gemini now say the settlement obtained in January 2025 should be rescinded because of a change in enforcement policy and because the underlying allegations were supported by what the parties regard as an unreliable whistleblower account. The filing further asserts that investigators should have, instead, examined the fraud that harmed Gemini.
Key factual elements stated in the filing include: Gemini settled the original CFTC charges in January 2025, paid a $5 million penalty and accepted an injunction restricting false or misleading statements to the CFTC; the CFTC and Gemini now jointly seek to vacate that settlement; and Gemini later secured approval for its prediction market product, Gemini Titan, in December 2025.
The court papers do not resolve questions about financial restitution for the previously paid penalty nor do they address any further remedial steps beyond rescinding the settlement. The filing also does not provide additional detail about the whistleblower account or the alleged internal fraud beyond asserting their roles in the original enforcement action.
Contextual note: The joint motion to vacate shifts the dispute from a settled enforcement outcome to a contested legal issue about whether the settlement was properly obtained and whether the agency's prior investigative choices were appropriate. The filing emphasizes both procedural and substantive claims about the conduct of the investigation and the motives behind regulatory leverage while an enforcement action was pending.