REJECTEDWALL #180
Sam Ikkurty
Posted April 14, 2026
PERMANENT LINKcftcsucks.com/180
PDF Document — 5 pages↓ Download PDF
SAM IKKURTY — CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATE samikkurty.com
C A S E A N A L Y S I S
100% of My Investors Stood By Me —
And the CFTC Still Pursued This Case
Published at samikkurty.com/blog/investors-stood-by-me-cftc-case | Case No. 1:22-cv-02465
(N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
When the CFTC's court-appointed Receiver filed a motion to liquidate the
cryptocurrency assets in the receivership estate — effectively destroying
the remaining value of my investors' holdings — something remarkable
happened.
Every single investor objected.
Not a majority. Not most of them. One hundred percent of the investors
in Rose City Fund filed formal objections with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. They retained independent legal counsel.
They wrote personal letters to the judge. They filed formal legal briefs.
They did everything within their power to stop the Receiver from
liquidating the assets that represented their investment.
These are not anonymous statistics. These are real people — Nimish
Madhiwala, Bimal Patel, Vamsi Thalluri, Maya Patel, Kumud Patel,
Tushar Vashi, Bala Kancharla, Satish Sreedhara, and dozens more — who
took time out of their lives to write to a federal judge and say: *we trust
Sam Ikkurty, we do not want this liquidation, and we object to what is
being done in our name.*
C A S E A N A L Y S I S
100% of My Investors Stood By Me —
And the CFTC Still Pursued This Case
Published at samikkurty.com/blog/investors-stood-by-me-cftc-case | Case No. 1:22-cv-02465
(N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
When the CFTC's court-appointed Receiver filed a motion to liquidate the
cryptocurrency assets in the receivership estate — effectively destroying
the remaining value of my investors' holdings — something remarkable
happened.
Every single investor objected.
Not a majority. Not most of them. One hundred percent of the investors
in Rose City Fund filed formal objections with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. They retained independent legal counsel.
They wrote personal letters to the judge. They filed formal legal briefs.
They did everything within their power to stop the Receiver from
liquidating the assets that represented their investment.
These are not anonymous statistics. These are real people — Nimish
Madhiwala, Bimal Patel, Vamsi Thalluri, Maya Patel, Kumud Patel,
Tushar Vashi, Bala Kancharla, Satish Sreedhara, and dozens more — who
took time out of their lives to write to a federal judge and say: *we trust
Sam Ikkurty, we do not want this liquidation, and we object to what is
being done in our name.*
## What the Investors Actually Said
The investor letters are now part of the public court record, docketed as
Documents 212 through 243 in *CFTC v. Ikkurty*, Case No. 1:22-
cv-02597 (N.D. Ill.). I have uploaded all of them to the Investor
Objections section of the Legal Documents page so that anyone can read
them directly.
These letters are not form letters. Each one is personal. Each one reflects
a real investor's genuine assessment of what happened to their money
and what they wanted the court to do about it. The consistent message
across all of them is the same: the investors did not feel defrauded by me.
They felt harmed by the CFTC's enforcement action and the Receiver's
management of their assets.
This is a fact that the CFTC's narrative cannot accommodate. The agency
brought this case claiming to protect investors. But the investors
themselves — unanimously — told the court that the harm was coming
from the CFTC and the Receiver, not from me.
## The Receiver's Motion to Liquidate
To understand why the investor objections matter so much, it helps to
understand what the Receiver was proposing to do.
In 2023, the court-appointed Receiver filed a motion to liquidate all
cryptocurrency assets in the receivership estate. At the time, those assets
included significant holdings in DeFi protocols on the Ethereum
blockchain — the same assets that had generated the extraordinary
returns documented in the StoneTurn expert report.
Liquidating those assets at that moment would have locked in losses at a
time when the crypto market was near a cyclical low. It would have
permanently destroyed value that, if held, could have recovered and
The investor letters are now part of the public court record, docketed as
Documents 212 through 243 in *CFTC v. Ikkurty*, Case No. 1:22-
cv-02597 (N.D. Ill.). I have uploaded all of them to the Investor
Objections section of the Legal Documents page so that anyone can read
them directly.
These letters are not form letters. Each one is personal. Each one reflects
a real investor's genuine assessment of what happened to their money
and what they wanted the court to do about it. The consistent message
across all of them is the same: the investors did not feel defrauded by me.
They felt harmed by the CFTC's enforcement action and the Receiver's
management of their assets.
This is a fact that the CFTC's narrative cannot accommodate. The agency
brought this case claiming to protect investors. But the investors
themselves — unanimously — told the court that the harm was coming
from the CFTC and the Receiver, not from me.
## The Receiver's Motion to Liquidate
To understand why the investor objections matter so much, it helps to
understand what the Receiver was proposing to do.
In 2023, the court-appointed Receiver filed a motion to liquidate all
cryptocurrency assets in the receivership estate. At the time, those assets
included significant holdings in DeFi protocols on the Ethereum
blockchain — the same assets that had generated the extraordinary
returns documented in the StoneTurn expert report.
Liquidating those assets at that moment would have locked in losses at a
time when the crypto market was near a cyclical low. It would have
permanently destroyed value that, if held, could have recovered and
grown substantially. The investors understood this. They had been
following the fund's strategy for years. They knew what the assets were
worth and what they could be worth.
So they objected. Formally, legally, and unanimously.
## What the Court Record Shows
The court record in this case tells a story that is fundamentally different
from the CFTC's narrative. Here is what the documents show:
The investors were not victims of fraud. They were sophisticated
participants who understood the fund's DeFi strategy, received 139
consecutive weekly updates with full blockchain transparency, and —
when given the opportunity to speak to the court — unanimously
defended the fund and opposed the government's actions.
The investors were not seeking restitution from me. In a genuine fraud
case, investors typically line up to recover their losses from the
defendant. In this case, the investors lined up to defend me and oppose
the Receiver's liquidation proposal.
The investors retained independent counsel. Attorney Sesha Kalapatapu
filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice (Dkt. #229) to represent
the investors' interests in opposing the Receiver's motion. This is not the
behavior of a group of fraud victims seeking justice against a wrongdoer.
This is the behavior of investors who believe the government is acting
against their interests.
## The CFTC's Response to Unanimous Investor Opposition
How did the CFTC respond to the fact that 100% of the investors opposed
the Receiver's liquidation motion?
following the fund's strategy for years. They knew what the assets were
worth and what they could be worth.
So they objected. Formally, legally, and unanimously.
## What the Court Record Shows
The court record in this case tells a story that is fundamentally different
from the CFTC's narrative. Here is what the documents show:
The investors were not victims of fraud. They were sophisticated
participants who understood the fund's DeFi strategy, received 139
consecutive weekly updates with full blockchain transparency, and —
when given the opportunity to speak to the court — unanimously
defended the fund and opposed the government's actions.
The investors were not seeking restitution from me. In a genuine fraud
case, investors typically line up to recover their losses from the
defendant. In this case, the investors lined up to defend me and oppose
the Receiver's liquidation proposal.
The investors retained independent counsel. Attorney Sesha Kalapatapu
filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice (Dkt. #229) to represent
the investors' interests in opposing the Receiver's motion. This is not the
behavior of a group of fraud victims seeking justice against a wrongdoer.
This is the behavior of investors who believe the government is acting
against their interests.
## The CFTC's Response to Unanimous Investor Opposition
How did the CFTC respond to the fact that 100% of the investors opposed
the Receiver's liquidation motion?
They continued the prosecution anyway.
This is perhaps the most revealing fact in the entire case. The agency's
stated mission is to protect investors. The investors — every single one of
them — told the court they did not want the agency's protection in this
form. They asked the court to stop the liquidation. They asked for their
assets to be preserved.
The CFTC's response was to press forward regardless.
This is not investor protection. This is regulatory overreach that harms
the very people it claims to protect.
## The Broader Context: What the Numbers Say
The investor objections do not exist in isolation. They are consistent with
every other piece of evidence in this case:
- 69 investors exited Rose City Investment Fund I (RCIF1) with a mean
CAGR of 303%. The investor with the lowest returns had a CAGR of
16.44%. Zero investors lost money.
- Fund II investors received returns as high as 339.55% in one year.
- The independent StoneTurn expert report, prepared by Charles R. Soha,
CFE, found no misappropriation of investor funds and confirmed that the
returns were mathematically impossible in a Ponzi scheme.
- CFTC Investigator Heather Dasso admitted under oath: *"As far as this
case, I did not look at the blockchain, correct."* She also admitted that no
investor ever complained about not receiving their promised dividend
payments.
Taken together, these facts paint a clear picture: this is a case where the
government pursued a fraud prosecution despite the absence of fraud, the
absence of investor harm, and the unanimous opposition of the investors
themselves.
This is perhaps the most revealing fact in the entire case. The agency's
stated mission is to protect investors. The investors — every single one of
them — told the court they did not want the agency's protection in this
form. They asked the court to stop the liquidation. They asked for their
assets to be preserved.
The CFTC's response was to press forward regardless.
This is not investor protection. This is regulatory overreach that harms
the very people it claims to protect.
## The Broader Context: What the Numbers Say
The investor objections do not exist in isolation. They are consistent with
every other piece of evidence in this case:
- 69 investors exited Rose City Investment Fund I (RCIF1) with a mean
CAGR of 303%. The investor with the lowest returns had a CAGR of
16.44%. Zero investors lost money.
- Fund II investors received returns as high as 339.55% in one year.
- The independent StoneTurn expert report, prepared by Charles R. Soha,
CFE, found no misappropriation of investor funds and confirmed that the
returns were mathematically impossible in a Ponzi scheme.
- CFTC Investigator Heather Dasso admitted under oath: *"As far as this
case, I did not look at the blockchain, correct."* She also admitted that no
investor ever complained about not receiving their promised dividend
payments.
Taken together, these facts paint a clear picture: this is a case where the
government pursued a fraud prosecution despite the absence of fraud, the
absence of investor harm, and the unanimous opposition of the investors
themselves.
## Why I Am Sharing This Now
I am sharing the investor objection documents publicly because
transparency is the only tool available to someone in my position.
For over three years, I have watched the CFTC's narrative — "Ponzi
scheme," "fraud," "investor harm" — circulate in the press and in court
filings, largely unchallenged by the countervailing evidence. The investors
who wrote those letters to Judge Rowland deserve to have their voices
heard beyond the court record. The public deserves to know that the
people the CFTC claims to be protecting unanimously opposed the
agency's actions.
The investor letters are now available in the Investor Objections section
of the Legal Documents page. I encourage anyone who wants to
understand this case to read them. They are the most direct evidence of
what actually happened — not what the CFTC alleged, but what the
investors themselves experienced and believed.
The rule of law must apply equally to government agencies and private
citizens. When an agency pursues a prosecution that its own alleged
victims oppose unanimously, something has gone profoundly wrong —
and that wrongdoing must be documented, challenged, and corrected.
I will continue to do exactly that.
Sam Ikkurty · samikkurty.com · All documents and evidence available at samikkurty.com/
legal-documents
I am sharing the investor objection documents publicly because
transparency is the only tool available to someone in my position.
For over three years, I have watched the CFTC's narrative — "Ponzi
scheme," "fraud," "investor harm" — circulate in the press and in court
filings, largely unchallenged by the countervailing evidence. The investors
who wrote those letters to Judge Rowland deserve to have their voices
heard beyond the court record. The public deserves to know that the
people the CFTC claims to be protecting unanimously opposed the
agency's actions.
The investor letters are now available in the Investor Objections section
of the Legal Documents page. I encourage anyone who wants to
understand this case to read them. They are the most direct evidence of
what actually happened — not what the CFTC alleged, but what the
investors themselves experienced and believed.
The rule of law must apply equally to government agencies and private
citizens. When an agency pursues a prosecution that its own alleged
victims oppose unanimously, something has gone profoundly wrong —
and that wrongdoing must be documented, challenged, and corrected.
I will continue to do exactly that.
Sam Ikkurty · samikkurty.com · All documents and evidence available at samikkurty.com/
legal-documents
Share this record
VERIFICATION RECORD
Submission trackF
StatusREJECTED
Posted2026-04-14T08:14:06.000Z
SHA-256 hashad6cdf43ecfed34458ec60f3757fd91f7c00d9ed1e80f656a60a480a6ce87c8e
Permanent record. This document is permanently archived on Arweave — a decentralised storage network — where it will persist independently of this website, any server, or any court order. The SHA-256 hash above cryptographically proves the document has not been altered since archiving.