REJECTEDWALL #260
Sam Ikkurty
Posted April 16, 2026
PERMANENT LINKcftcsucks.com/260
PDF Document — 3 pages↓ Download PDF
The Search Warrant Affidavit the Public
Has Never Seen
Sam Ikkurty | samikkurty.com | April 16, 2026
Every armed federal raid begins with a sworn affidavit. A federal agent — in this case,
almost certainly someone from the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement — appeared before
a magistrate judge in the District of Oregon and swore under oath that there was
probable cause to search my home. The magistrate signed the warrant. The agents
came to my door at 6:00 a.m. with weapons.
That affidavit has never been made public.
In the four years since the May 16, 2022 raid, neither the CFTC nor the Department of
Justice has disclosed the contents of the warrant application. The public record in
CFTC v. Sam Ikkurty, Case No. 1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.), contains hundreds of filings —
but not the affidavit that triggered the most dramatic moment of the entire
proceeding.
This matters for a specific reason: the CFTC’s lead investigator, Heather Dasso,
admitted under oath on September 5, 2023 that she never reviewed the blockchain.
The blockchain is the primary evidence in any digital asset fraud case. It is the
immutable public ledger that records every transaction. If the investigator never
reviewed it, what did the warrant affidavit say about the transactions? What
representations were made to the magistrate judge about the evidence?
If the affidavit contained representations about blockchain transactions that the
affiant had not actually reviewed, that is a serious problem. Federal law — specifically
18 U.S.C. § 1001 — prohibits false statements to federal officials. The Fourth
Amendment requires that warrant affidavits be truthful. A warrant obtained through
material misrepresentations can be challenged under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154
(1978).
I have filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Oregon U.S. Attorney’s
Office seeking the complete warrant application, the supporting affidavit, all
Has Never Seen
Sam Ikkurty | samikkurty.com | April 16, 2026
Every armed federal raid begins with a sworn affidavit. A federal agent — in this case,
almost certainly someone from the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement — appeared before
a magistrate judge in the District of Oregon and swore under oath that there was
probable cause to search my home. The magistrate signed the warrant. The agents
came to my door at 6:00 a.m. with weapons.
That affidavit has never been made public.
In the four years since the May 16, 2022 raid, neither the CFTC nor the Department of
Justice has disclosed the contents of the warrant application. The public record in
CFTC v. Sam Ikkurty, Case No. 1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.), contains hundreds of filings —
but not the affidavit that triggered the most dramatic moment of the entire
proceeding.
This matters for a specific reason: the CFTC’s lead investigator, Heather Dasso,
admitted under oath on September 5, 2023 that she never reviewed the blockchain.
The blockchain is the primary evidence in any digital asset fraud case. It is the
immutable public ledger that records every transaction. If the investigator never
reviewed it, what did the warrant affidavit say about the transactions? What
representations were made to the magistrate judge about the evidence?
If the affidavit contained representations about blockchain transactions that the
affiant had not actually reviewed, that is a serious problem. Federal law — specifically
18 U.S.C. § 1001 — prohibits false statements to federal officials. The Fourth
Amendment requires that warrant affidavits be truthful. A warrant obtained through
material misrepresentations can be challenged under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154
(1978).
I have filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Oregon U.S. Attorney’s
Office seeking the complete warrant application, the supporting affidavit, all
attachments, and the identity of the AUSA who authorized the application. I have also
requested records showing whether the Oregon U.S. Attorney’s Office reviewed this
case for criminal prosecution and the reasons for any declination.
The public has a right to know what was in that affidavit. The investors who received a
397% return on their investment have a right to know. The 32 limited partners who
filed formal objections with the court have a right to know. The Seventh Circuit, which
is now reviewing this case on appeal (No. 24-2684), may find the answer relevant.
Transparency is not a courtesy in federal enforcement. It is a constitutional
requirement. The CFTC has spent four years arguing that I was not transparent with
investors. I am asking the government to be transparent with the public about the
evidence it used to justify an armed raid on a private home.
The FOIA request has been filed. We will see what the government produces.
FOIA Requests Filed
Agency Records Requested
Oregon U.S. Attorney’s
Office
Search warrant application, affidavit, criminal declination
records
DOJ Civil Division All civil records related to the enforcement action
FBI Any investigation records, referrals from CFTC
SEC Any records related to Rose City Income Fund
CFTC All investigation records, communications
CFTC Inspector General Records of any IG review of investigator conduct
Legal Framework
The Fourth Amendment requires that warrant affidavits be truthful and based on
personal knowledge or reliable hearsay. Under
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978),
a defendant may challenge a warrant if the affidavit contained deliberate falsehoods
or reckless disregard for the truth. If the affiant represented facts about blockchain
transactions without having reviewed the blockchain, that is a potential Franks issue.
requested records showing whether the Oregon U.S. Attorney’s Office reviewed this
case for criminal prosecution and the reasons for any declination.
The public has a right to know what was in that affidavit. The investors who received a
397% return on their investment have a right to know. The 32 limited partners who
filed formal objections with the court have a right to know. The Seventh Circuit, which
is now reviewing this case on appeal (No. 24-2684), may find the answer relevant.
Transparency is not a courtesy in federal enforcement. It is a constitutional
requirement. The CFTC has spent four years arguing that I was not transparent with
investors. I am asking the government to be transparent with the public about the
evidence it used to justify an armed raid on a private home.
The FOIA request has been filed. We will see what the government produces.
FOIA Requests Filed
Agency Records Requested
Oregon U.S. Attorney’s
Office
Search warrant application, affidavit, criminal declination
records
DOJ Civil Division All civil records related to the enforcement action
FBI Any investigation records, referrals from CFTC
SEC Any records related to Rose City Income Fund
CFTC All investigation records, communications
CFTC Inspector General Records of any IG review of investigator conduct
Legal Framework
The Fourth Amendment requires that warrant affidavits be truthful and based on
personal knowledge or reliable hearsay. Under
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978),
a defendant may challenge a warrant if the affidavit contained deliberate falsehoods
or reckless disregard for the truth. If the affiant represented facts about blockchain
transactions without having reviewed the blockchain, that is a potential Franks issue.
Published April 16, 2026 | samikkurty.com Case No. 1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir.
Appeal No. 24-2684 | Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)
Appeal No. 24-2684 | Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)
Share this record
VERIFICATION RECORD
Submission trackF
StatusREJECTED
Posted2026-04-16T07:15:11.000Z
SHA-256 hash033fdb423aae66b8e522b17bbe7dbf95e0b0903b589afa6afaaa08685944a8bf
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.