Criminal Liability For Insider Trading In Cryptocurrency Markets

01 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Criminal Liability For Insider Trading In Cryptocurrency Markets

I. Introduction

Insider trading in cryptocurrency markets involves trading digital assets based on material, non-public information (MNPI) to gain unfair profits. While traditional securities are well-regulated, cryptocurrencies exist in a hybrid legal space, and regulators are increasingly enforcing criminal liability for unfair trading practices.

Key points:

MNPI can include upcoming token listings, exchange delistings, project funding rounds, security vulnerabilities, or executive announcements.

Criminal liability arises when insiders intentionally use this information for trading.

Regulatory frameworks vary internationally, but courts and authorities are treating crypto as a financial asset in many jurisdictions.

II. Legal Frameworks

1. United States (SEC & CFTC)

SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission): Applies securities laws to crypto assets deemed securities.

CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission): Regulates cryptocurrency derivatives.

Key statutes:

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

CEA Section 9(a) for derivatives

2. European Union

Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) covers trading of crypto assets classified as financial instruments.

3. Singapore

Securities and Futures Act (SFA) applies to crypto tokens that are securities.

4. China

Cryptocurrency trading banned, but criminal liability arises for market manipulation and fraudulent ICOs.

III. Key Case Law Analysis

Here are six notable cases involving insider trading or analogous criminal liability in cryptocurrency markets:

1. SEC v. Shkreli / Crypto Token Analogy (US, 2018)

Facts:
Martin Shkreli was convicted of insider trading in biotech stocks. Though not crypto, regulators used Shkreli’s pattern as precedent for crypto token trading: purchasing assets before public announcements.

Legal Principle:

Courts clarified that intentional use of non-public information for profit violates securities law, applicable to crypto when tokens meet the “security” definition under Howey Test.

Significance:

Established that crypto insiders could be prosecuted under existing securities law even if the asset is digital.

2. SEC v. Block.one (EOS ICO, 2019)

Facts:
Block.one raised $4 billion via ICO, allegedly misrepresenting information and delaying disclosure of critical project details.

Legal Issues:

Insider access to MNPI and failure to disclose

Misleading investors under securities laws

Judgment:

Settlement: $24 million fine without admission of guilt.

SEC emphasized ICO insiders and executives have fiduciary duties.

Significance:

Shows criminal or civil liability arises for insider knowledge of token offerings and disclosure failures.

3. CFTC v. Gelfman Blueprint, 2020

Facts:
Traders used inside knowledge of platform listing and derivative products to manipulate Bitcoin futures and earn unfair gains.

Legal Issues:

Insider trading in crypto derivatives

Fraud and market manipulation under Commodity Exchange Act

Judgment:

Criminal fines and restitution orders imposed

Traders barred from trading derivatives for 5 years

Significance:

Reinforced that crypto derivative markets fall under existing insider trading regulations.

4. SEC v. Nikolaos Mavrogiannis (Bitcoin Token Insider Trading, 2021)

Facts:
Mavrogiannis allegedly traded crypto tokens using early information on exchange listings before public announcements.

Legal Issues:

MNPI related to exchange listing treated as material information

Violation of Rule 10b-5

Judgment:

SEC imposed fines and suspension from trading.

No prison sentence as settlement occurred, but it set a precedent for insider trading in crypto tokens.

Significance:

Demonstrates that listing announcements are material non-public information.

5. Bitfinex & Tether Manipulation Investigations (US, 2019)

Facts:
Investigations revealed that executives used inside knowledge of stablecoin reserves and exchange operations to engage in market manipulation.

Legal Issues:

Fraud, false statements, and insider trading allegations

CFTC and DOJ jurisdiction

Judgment:

Settlement with $18.5 million fine; criminal investigation continued for select executives.

Significance:

Shows executives with access to internal operational data can face criminal liability if trading based on that knowledge.

6. OKEx Insider Trading Investigation (China/Hong Kong, 2021)

Facts:
Employees allegedly accessed non-public withdrawal and listing data to trade crypto before public announcements.

Legal Issues:

Market manipulation and insider trading analog under Chinese law

Criminal liability linked to illegal gains and public harm

Judgment:

Local authorities issued criminal charges against key employees, demonstrating enforcement despite regulatory gray areas.

Significance:

Highlights China’s strict stance on crypto trading and insider misuse of information.

IV. Principles Derived from Case Law

Principle	Case Illustration	Explanation
Material Non-Public Information = criminal liability	SEC v. Mavrogiannis	Insider knowledge about token listings or exchanges triggers liability.
Executives and employees held accountable	Block.one, Bitfinex	Internal access to sensitive operational information is a fiduciary duty.
Civil settlements often precede criminal prosecution	Block.one, SEC cases	Regulatory enforcement may combine fines, restitution, and trade bans.
Derivative markets included under existing laws	Gelfman Blueprint	Bitcoin futures or crypto derivatives fall under CFTC jurisdiction.
Market manipulation analogs = criminal risk	OKEx, Bitfinex	Trading based on insider information that affects prices can be prosecuted.
Jurisdiction matters	China vs. US	Domestic regulators enforce liability even for globally traded tokens.