REJECTEDWALL #259
Sam Ikkurty
Posted April 16, 2026
PERMANENT LINKcftcsucks.com/259
PDF Document — 2 pages↓ Download PDF
The Armed Raid That Started It All — And the Criminal
Charges That Never Came
Sam Ikkurty | samikkurty.com | April 16, 2026
At 6:00 a.m. on May 16, 2022, armed federal agents and U.S. Marshals arrived at my home in Portland, Oregon. They had a search
warrant. They had weapons. What they did not have — as the CFTC’s own lead investigator would later admit under oath — was
any review of the blockchain.
The raid was the opening act of CFTC v. Sam Ikkurty, Case No. 1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.). Within days, the CFTC had obtained a
Temporary Restraining Order freezing all of my assets — an ex parte order issued in an eleven-minute hearing at which I was not
present and had no opportunity to respond. The CFTC’s press release called it a “Ponzi scheme.” The word “Ponzi” appeared in
headlines across the country.
Here is what those headlines did not mention: the Department of Justice reviewed this case and declined to bring criminal
charges.
That declination matters enormously. Federal prosecutors have the same access to evidence that the CFTC has. They reviewed the
facts, the transactions, the fund records. They concluded that the conduct did not rise to the level of criminal fraud. The standard
for criminal fraud — beyond a reasonable doubt — is higher than the civil preponderance standard. But the direction of the DOJ’s
conclusion is telling: the agency with the most powerful investigative tools in the federal government looked at this case and
walked away.
The CFTC did not walk away. It pressed forward with a civil enforcement action, obtained a
29.3 million on a $5.9 million investment — a 397% return. Not one investor filed a complaint. Not one investor lost money. Thirty-
two of them filed formal objections with the court, asking the proceedings to stop.
The CFTC’s own expert witness — retained and paid by the agency — testified that the fund was not a Ponzi scheme.
The lead investigator, Heather Dasso, admitted under oath on September 5, 2023 that she never reviewed the blockchain. In a
case built entirely on the theory that digital asset transactions were fraudulent, the investigator who built the case never
examined the primary evidence.
The armed raid, the asset freeze, the $209 million judgment, the four years of litigation — all of it rests on an investigation that, by
the investigator’s own sworn admission, never looked at the blockchain.
The Seventh Circuit is now reviewing this case on appeal, No. 24-2684. The questions before the court include whether the CFTC
had jurisdiction over digital assets at all, and whether the constitutional rights of the defendant were violated by the manner in
which the enforcement action was conducted.
The DOJ said no to criminal charges. The CFTC said yes to a $209 million civil judgment. The Seventh Circuit will have the final
word.
Key Facts
209millionjudgment, andhasmaintainedacompleteassetf reezef ornearlyf ouryears.T he69limitedpartnerswhoinvestedinRos
Charges That Never Came
Sam Ikkurty | samikkurty.com | April 16, 2026
At 6:00 a.m. on May 16, 2022, armed federal agents and U.S. Marshals arrived at my home in Portland, Oregon. They had a search
warrant. They had weapons. What they did not have — as the CFTC’s own lead investigator would later admit under oath — was
any review of the blockchain.
The raid was the opening act of CFTC v. Sam Ikkurty, Case No. 1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.). Within days, the CFTC had obtained a
Temporary Restraining Order freezing all of my assets — an ex parte order issued in an eleven-minute hearing at which I was not
present and had no opportunity to respond. The CFTC’s press release called it a “Ponzi scheme.” The word “Ponzi” appeared in
headlines across the country.
Here is what those headlines did not mention: the Department of Justice reviewed this case and declined to bring criminal
charges.
That declination matters enormously. Federal prosecutors have the same access to evidence that the CFTC has. They reviewed the
facts, the transactions, the fund records. They concluded that the conduct did not rise to the level of criminal fraud. The standard
for criminal fraud — beyond a reasonable doubt — is higher than the civil preponderance standard. But the direction of the DOJ’s
conclusion is telling: the agency with the most powerful investigative tools in the federal government looked at this case and
walked away.
The CFTC did not walk away. It pressed forward with a civil enforcement action, obtained a
29.3 million on a $5.9 million investment — a 397% return. Not one investor filed a complaint. Not one investor lost money. Thirty-
two of them filed formal objections with the court, asking the proceedings to stop.
The CFTC’s own expert witness — retained and paid by the agency — testified that the fund was not a Ponzi scheme.
The lead investigator, Heather Dasso, admitted under oath on September 5, 2023 that she never reviewed the blockchain. In a
case built entirely on the theory that digital asset transactions were fraudulent, the investigator who built the case never
examined the primary evidence.
The armed raid, the asset freeze, the $209 million judgment, the four years of litigation — all of it rests on an investigation that, by
the investigator’s own sworn admission, never looked at the blockchain.
The Seventh Circuit is now reviewing this case on appeal, No. 24-2684. The questions before the court include whether the CFTC
had jurisdiction over digital assets at all, and whether the constitutional rights of the defendant were violated by the manner in
which the enforcement action was conducted.
The DOJ said no to criminal charges. The CFTC said yes to a $209 million civil judgment. The Seventh Circuit will have the final
word.
Key Facts
209millionjudgment, andhasmaintainedacompleteassetf reezef ornearlyf ouryears.T he69limitedpartnerswhoinvestedinRos
Item Detail
Case CFTC v. Sam Ikkurty, No. 1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.)
Appeal 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
Raid Date May 16, 2022, Portland, Oregon
Investors 69 limited partners
Amount Invested $5.9 million
Amount Returned $29.3 million (397% return)
Investor Losses $0
Investor Complaints 0
Investor Objections to Case 32 formal court filings
DOJ Criminal Charges Declined
CFTC Judgment $209 million
Lead Investigator Blockchain Review Never conducted (admitted under oath Sept. 5, 2023)
Published April 16, 2026 | samikkurty.com Case No. 1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. Appeal No. 24-2684 | CFTC Press Release 8532-
22
Case CFTC v. Sam Ikkurty, No. 1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.)
Appeal 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
Raid Date May 16, 2022, Portland, Oregon
Investors 69 limited partners
Amount Invested $5.9 million
Amount Returned $29.3 million (397% return)
Investor Losses $0
Investor Complaints 0
Investor Objections to Case 32 formal court filings
DOJ Criminal Charges Declined
CFTC Judgment $209 million
Lead Investigator Blockchain Review Never conducted (admitted under oath Sept. 5, 2023)
Published April 16, 2026 | samikkurty.com Case No. 1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. Appeal No. 24-2684 | CFTC Press Release 8532-
22
Share this record
VERIFICATION RECORD
Submission trackF
StatusREJECTED
Posted2026-04-16T07:15:11.000Z
SHA-256 hash14ad3d1ece11eaf83184f04723b92dd02092c45380713a04ab2c9d573316b2d5
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.