詹姆斯·多納託法官駁回了針對及時性的訴訟

法官根據《美國證券交易所法》的三年靜止法規定，該案“有時”。

U.S. District Judge James Donato has dismissed a class action lawsuit against DFINITY, the crypto company behind Internet Computer (ICO). The judge found the case “time-barred” and dismissed it on Monday.

美國地方法院法官詹姆斯·多納托（James Donato）駁回了針對互聯網計算機（ICO）的加密公司Dfinity的集體訴訟。法官發現該案“有時”，並於週一駁回了此案。

The California federal judge ruled that DFINITY USA Research LLC and its Swiss parent foundation defeated allegations that they misled investors about a 2021 initial crypto coin offering. Jude Donato said that investors neither sufficiently alleged the reliability of sources accusing DFINITY employees of selling tokens nor the level of intent to commit securities fraud with enough detail to meet heightened pleading standards.

加利福尼亞聯邦法官裁定，Dfinity USA Research LLC及其瑞士父母基金會擊敗了指控，即他們誤導了2021年最初的加密貨幣發行的投資者。裘德·多納托（Jude Donato）表示，投資者尚未充分指控指控dfinity僱員出售令牌的來源的可靠性，也沒有提出足夠詳細的證券欺詐的意圖水平，以達到提高的訴狀標準。

Judge James Donato drops lawsuit against DFINITY

法官詹姆斯·多納托（James Donato

California Judge Dismisses Dfinity Investor Suit For Being 'Time-Barred'https://t.co/tByDDZhdyS

加利福尼亞州法官因“時間鍵'https：//t.co/tbyddzhdys駁回了dfinity Investor訴訟

— John Morgan (@johnmorganFL) March 27, 2025

- 約翰·摩根（John Morgan）（@johnmorganfl）2025年3月27日

The case was dismissed on March 25. Granting DFINITY’s motion to dismiss, Judge Donato found the lawsuit to be "time-barred" by the Securities Exchange Act’s three-year statute of repose. The judge ruled that the investors’ claims the firm sold unregistered securities exceeded the statute of repose by a year and six months.

該案於3月25日被駁回。批准Dfinity駁回動議，Donato法官發現該訴訟被《美國證券交易所法案》的三年休息法“束縛”。法官裁定，投資者的要求該公司出售了未註冊的證券，超過了一年零六個月的休養法。

Judge Donato sided with the company’s argument that it began offering ICP tokens to the public in February 2017. He said that the claims placed the August 2021 investor lawsuit outside the required timeframe. California resident Daniel Ocampo filed the complaint “on behalf of all investors who purchased Internet Computer Project tokens on or after May 10, 2021.”

Donato法官支持該公司的論點，即它於2017年2月開始向公眾提供ICP令牌。他說，這些索賠使2021年8月的投資者訴訟置於所需的時間範圍之外。加利福尼亞居民丹尼爾·奧坎波（Daniel Ocampo）“代表所有在2021年5月10日或之後購買Internet計算機項目代幣的投資者。”

When the lawsuit was first filed, the plaintiffs and their representative, currently Freedman Normand Friedland LLP (formerly Roche Freedman), offered no response to the defendant’s argument. The California judge also found that investors failed to prove their fraud claims.

首次提起訴訟時，原告及其代表，目前是Freedman Normand Friedland LLP（以前是Roche Freedman），對被告的論點沒有任何回應。加州法官還發現，投資者未能證明其欺詐索賠。

Judge Donato rejected the plaintiffs’ core argument that DFINITY founder Dominic Williams knew and “necessarily had knowledge” about token distribution issues simply because of his position.

多納託法官拒絕了原告的核心論點，即Dfinity創始人多米尼克·威廉姆斯（Dominic Williams）僅僅因為他的立場就知道並“一定有知識”。

The case ended after Tuesday’s ruling, ending a contentious legal battle marked by controversy surrounding the plaintiffs’ previous counsel. Kyle Roche, a former partner at defunct crypto law firm Roche Freedman, was allegedly recorded bragging about leveraging litigation to gather confidential information on crypto firms.

該案在周二的裁決後結束，結束了一場有爭議的法律鬥爭，該戰鬥以圍繞原告以前的律師的爭議為標誌。據稱，已故加密律師事務所Roche Freedman的前合夥人Kyle Roche被記錄在吹牛，以利用訴訟來收集有關加密貨幣公司的機密信息。

The founders of Roche Freedman later went to court after fighting over $60 million worth of tokens issued by Ava Labs. The complainants, under the counsel of Selendy Gay PLLC after their previous counsel’s replacement, had alleged that DFINITY manipulated the digital asset market and inflated ICP token prices after its May 2021 trading debut.

羅氏·弗里德曼（Roche Freedman）的創始人後來在與阿瓦實驗室（Ava Labs）發行的價值超過6000萬美元的代幣作戰後，在法庭上。申訴人在塞倫迪同性戀PLLC的律師後面的律師後面的律師替換後，聲稱Dfinity在2021年5月的交易首次亮相後操縱了數字資產市場並誇大了ICP代幣價格。

Judge Donato still granted plaintiffs a final chance to amend their complaint by April 8 and warned that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal under federal rules on civil procedure.

多納託法官仍然批准了原告在4月8日之前修改其申訴的最終機會，並警告說，未能達到截止日期將導致根據《聯邦民事訴訟規則》的駁回。

Arkham Intelligence published a report on DFINITY’s ICP token after analysts noticed the token’s 90% price crash in its first month was highly unusual. The analytics platform also noted some $2 billion in ICP tokens were transferred to cryptocurrency exchanges by “probable insider addresses” after the Genesis launch. The firm argued that the optimum clocked in at around 15% to 20% of the total tokens sold.

Arkham Intelligence發表了一份關於Dfinity的ICP令牌的報告，此前分析師注意到令牌第一個月的價格崩潰的90％是非常不尋常的。該分析平台還指出，在創世紀啟動後，通過“可能的內部地址”將約20億美元的ICP代幣轉移到了加密貨幣交易所。該公司認為，最佳的售價約為售出的代幣的15％至20％。

The defendants alleged the 469,213,710 ICP tokens that were made available during ICP’s Genesis launch were “created out of thin air” and sold in violation of the 1933 Securities Act.

被告稱，在ICP Genesis發射期間可用的469,213,710個ICP令牌是“用薄空製成”，並違反​​了1933年的《證券法》。

Judge dismisses DFINITY’s case on jurisdiction parameters

法官駁回了Dfinity關於管轄權參數的案件

On Tuesday, April 30, 2024, the United States District Court also dismissed a lawsuit brought against DFINITY, its founder Dominic Williams, and board member Gian Bochsler. Eftychios Theodorakis filed that the firm made false statements about its ICP crypto tokens and sold millions of dollars before the value dropped. The complainant argued that he was deceived into holding on to tokens that lost value.

2024年4月30日，星期二，美國地方法院還駁回了針對Dfinity的訴訟，其創始人Dominic Williams和董事會成員Gian Bochsler提起訴訟。 Eftychios Theodorakis提出，該公司對ICP加密代幣發表了虛假陳述，並在價值下降之前出售了數百萬美元。申訴人辯稱，他被欺騙，堅持失去價值的代幣。

The lawsuit indicated claims of negligence, conversion, penalties under California law, trespass to chattels, intentional misrepresentation, and civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations.

該訴訟表明，根據加利福尼亞法律規定的疏忽，conversion依，刑罰，侵入動產，故意虛假陳述以及對民用球衣受到影響和腐敗的組織（RICO）法案的主張。

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin concluded that the court had no personal jurisdiction over Williams and Bochsler as individuals. The judge found no substantial proof to establish that the accused had purposefully availed themselves of operating in California despite selling the ICP tokens through the California-based crypto exchange Coinbase.

Araceli Martinez-Olguin法官得出結論，法院對Williams和Bochsler沒有個人管轄權。法官沒有發現確定被告有目的地在加利福尼亞運營的實質證據，儘管通過加利福尼亞的加密貨幣交易所出售了ICP令牌。

Without jurisdiction over the RICO claims only alleged against the plaintiffs, the judge concluded that the court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against DFINITY as a company.

如果沒有對原告的RICO索賠管轄權，法官得出結論，法院無法對剩餘的針對Dfinity作為公司的州法律索賠行使補充管轄權。