This Week in Crypto Law: What Happened in Onchain Court Cases

U.S. courts and regulators continued to press crypto market participants on enforcement and insider-trading theories this week, with developments spanning the fallout from FTX, prediction-market litigation, and a newly unsealed indictment tied to an alleged $165 million Ponzi scheme. In parallel, prosecutors asked the court to keep alive a case against a Polymarket user accused of trading on nonpublic information.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC issued consent orders imposing five-year trading bans on former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison and FTX co-founder Zixiao “Gary” Wang.
• Alongside the trading bans, Ellison received a 10-year registration ban and Wang an eight-year registration ban, tied to their roles in the FTX collapse.
• In SDNY, U.S. prosecutors opposed a motion to dismiss filed by a soldier accused of making more than $400,000 on Polymarket using alleged nonpublic information.
• A Georgia judge ordered an indictment unsealed against Edward Zimbardi, who prosecutors allege ran a “Crypto Program” that used false promises to solicit investments.

CFTC consent orders extend market restrictions after FTX

On Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) entered consent orders connected to a 2022 enforcement action involving former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison and FTX co-founder Zixiao “Gary” Wang, according to a report by Cointelegraph.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) required both individuals to accept five-year trading bans related to their involvement in the exchange’s collapse. The regulator also imposed longer-term restrictions on business activity: Ellison was ordered to serve a 10-year registration ban, while Wang received an eight-year registration ban.

In remarks tied to the orders, CFTC enforcement director David Miller said the bans reflected “material assistance in the Commission’s FTX-related investigations.” The CFTC’s civil action is described as separate from criminal proceedings that addressed misuse of customer funds. In those criminal cases, Ellison was sentenced to two years in prison, while Wang received time served.

For traders and compliance teams, these orders underscore how the CFTC can translate cooperation and investigatory conduct into concrete market-access limits—even after criminal outcomes are already underway. The practical effect is clear: individuals can face restrictions on trading and registration that persist well beyond any jail sentence timeline.

Prosecutors fight to keep Polymarket insider-trading case alive

Meanwhile, in SDNY, U.S. government lawyers filed an opposition to a motion to dismiss from Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a U.S. soldier accused of using nonpublic information to generate more than $400,000 through event contracts on Polymarket. Van Dyke was reportedly connected to the military operation involving the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January.

The defense motion, filed July 31, argued that the Commodity Exchange Act—central to three of the charges—was “ambiguous” about whether event contracts should be treated as “swaps” under the CFTC’s jurisdiction. In its Wednesday filing, the government said Van Dyke’s briefing relied on hypotheticals and “edge cases” involving state gaming laws that were not necessary to resolve the dismissal request.

“Van Dyke’s motion asks the Court to make a factual determination not appropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage,” said SDNY Deputy U.S. Attorney Sean Buckley. “His argument relies on speculative assertions about facts, based on improper inferences from the Indictment and incorrect conclusions about the nature of the charge, to claim that facts do not amount to ‘property.’”

As of Friday, the court had not made a decision publicly available on the motion to dismiss.

This dispute matters because it tests a recurring fault line in U.S. crypto regulation: whether certain digital market instruments are properly captured by existing commodities frameworks. Even when courts consider jurisdiction and statutory interpretation at an early stage, the arguments can shape how quickly the case proceeds and what facts the government must prove later.

Georgia judge unseals indictment tied to alleged $165 million “Crypto Program”

In Georgia, a judge ordered an indictment unsealed involving Edward Zimbardi, whom prosecutors allege masterminded a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme worth about $165 million. The case, as described in coverage by Cointelegraph, was initially filed after Zimbardi was indicted on July 8, and prosecutors say he fled to Fiji before being deported back to the U.S.

According to prosecutors, Zimbardi will face wire fraud and money laundering charges in the Northern District of Georgia. Prosecutors allege he “tricked thousands of people” into investing in a venture called the “Crypto Program” through false promises of enormous returns.

The unsealed charging document sets out a total of 25 counts. Prosecutors say the indictment includes 12 counts of wire fraud, one count of money laundering conspiracy, and 11 counts of transactional money laundering tied to alleged activity during the Crypto Program between 2022 and 2023.

Prosecutors also are seeking forfeiture of proceeds from the alleged wire fraud and money laundering, as well as additional crypto reportedly seized on the way toward conviction. The indictment references assets seized by Dutch authorities in 2024, including 11.87 Bitcoin (BTC), 2.15 Ether (ETH), 713,344,695 Shiba Inu (SHIB), 47,110 USDt (USDT), 12,095 USDT0, 3.3 million XRP, 1,095 Dogecoin (DOGE), 10.2 million Osaka Protocol (OSAK), and 11.97 Polygon (POL), which the indictment describes as worth about $6 million combined.

The unsealing of charges is often a key procedural turning point—moving the allegations from investigation into a posture where the court process can formally start testing the claims. For investors who were approached through similar “high-return” crypto schemes, the case also highlights how prosecutors track both on-chain or asset-related activity and traditional fraud theories through wire communications and financial transfer patterns.

Looking ahead, readers should watch whether SDNY resolves the Polymarket motion-to-dismiss and how it frames “event contracts” under the Commodity Exchange Act, while also monitoring the pace of the Zimbardi prosecution in Georgia as courts begin to address the merits of the unsealed wire fraud and money laundering allegations.