Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Control-Finance Limited

Nature of the Document

The provided text is a letter from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not a court opinion or order. The Commission asked the court for two forms of scheduling relief: an adjournment, or postponement, of the initial conference and the required report about the parties’ planning for the case; and an extension of time to serve the defendants with the lawsuit.

Background

The Commission filed the action against Control-Finance Ltd. and Benjamin Reynolds on June 17, 2019. According to the Commission’s allegations, the defendants operated a fraudulent scheme through Control-Finance’s website and social-media accounts and misappropriated Bitcoin from more than 1,000 customers. The letter states that Reynolds is an individual and United Kingdom national who represented that he lived in Manchester, England, and that Control-Finance was organized by Reynolds and incorporated as a United Kingdom private limited company. It also states that Reynolds was the company’s sole owner and director during the relevant period.

Service Efforts

The Commission said it tried to serve the defendants under the federal rules governing service abroad and the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. It hired a solicitor in the United Kingdom, who arranged for an agent to attempt personal service on Reynolds and service on Control-Finance at addresses provided to the United Kingdom Registrar. On July 31, 2019, the agent could not locate Reynolds at the listed Manchester address. The Commission also stated that Control-Finance’s listed office address appeared to be nonexistent or an abandoned, boarded-up office building. The Commission said it was continuing to search for Reynolds and might later ask to use another method of service allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). It also said Control-Finance had been dissolved by the United Kingdom Registrar and that it was determining what further steps might be needed to complete service on the company.

Commission’s Legal Position

The Commission argued that the usual 90-day service deadline does not apply to service on a defendant in a foreign country when the service is made under other provisions of Rule 4. It asserted that it had made a good-faith effort to begin service within the usual period and therefore was not aware of a fixed deadline for completing service. In the alternative, it requested an extension as a precaution.

Disposition

The provided text does not include a court ruling. It records the Commission’s request that the December 9, 2019 initial conference and Rule 26(f) report be postponed until service was completed, and that the time for service be extended. It does not state whether Judge John G. Koeltl granted, denied, or otherwise decided those requests.