詹姆斯·多纳托法官驳回了针对及时性的诉讼

法官根据《美国证券交易所法》的三年静止法规定，该案“有时”。

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.

美国地方法院法官詹姆斯·多纳托（James Donato）驳回了针对互联网计算机（ICO）的加密公司Dfinity的集体诉讼。法官发现该案“有时”，并于周一驳回了此案。

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.

加利福尼亚联邦法官裁定，Dfinity USA Research LLC及其瑞士父母基金会击败了指控，即他们误导了2021年最初的加密货币发行的投资者。裘德·多纳托（Jude Donato）表示，投资者尚未充分指控指控dfinity雇员出售令牌的来源的可靠性，也没有提出足够详细的证券欺诈的意图水平，以达到提高的诉状标准。

Judge James Donato drops lawsuit against DFINITY

法官詹姆斯·多纳托（James Donato

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

加利福尼亚州法官因“时间键'https：//t.co/tbyddzhdys驳回了dfinity Investor诉讼

— John Morgan (@johnmorganFL) March 27, 2025

- 约翰·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.

该案于3月25日被驳回。批准Dfinity驳回动议，Donato法官发现该诉讼被《美国证券交易所法案》的三年休息法“束缚”。法官裁定，投资者的要求该公司出售了未注册的证券，超过了一年零六个月的休养法。

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法官支持该公司的论点，即它于2017年2月开始向公众提供ICP令牌。他说，这些索赔使2021年8月的投资者诉讼置于所需的时间范围之外。加利福尼亚居民丹尼尔·奥坎波（Daniel Ocampo）“代表所有在2021年5月10日或之后购买Internet计算机项目代币的投资者。”

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.

首次提起诉讼时，原告及其代表，目前是Freedman Normand Friedland LLP（以前是Roche Freedman），对被告的论点没有任何回应。加州法官还发现，投资者未能证明其欺诈索赔。

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.

多纳托法官拒绝了原告的核心论点，即Dfinity创始人多米尼克·威廉姆斯（Dominic Williams）仅仅因为他的立场就知道并“一定有知识”。

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.

该案在周二的裁决后结束，结束了一场有争议的法律斗争，该战斗以围绕原告以前的律师的争议为标志。据称，已故加密律师事务所Roche Freedman的前合伙人Kyle Roche被记录在吹牛，以利用诉讼来收集有关加密货币公司的机密信息。

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.

罗氏·弗里德曼（Roche Freedman）的创始人后来在与阿瓦实验室（Ava Labs）发行的价值超过6000万美元的代币作战后，在法庭上。申诉人在塞伦迪同性恋PLLC的律师后面的律师后面的律师替换后，声称Dfinity在2021年5月的交易首次亮相后操纵了数字资产市场并夸大了ICP代币价格。

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.

多纳托法官仍然批准了原告在4月8日之前修改其申诉的最终机会，并警告说，未能达到截止日期将导致根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》的驳回。

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发表了一份关于Dfinity的ICP令牌的报告，此前分析师注意到令牌第一个月的价格崩溃的90％是非常不寻常的。该分析平台还指出，在创世纪启动后，通过“可能的内部地址”将约20亿美元的ICP代币转移到了加密货币交易所。该公司认为，最佳的售价约为售出的代币的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.

被告称，在ICP Genesis发射期间可用的469,213,710个ICP令牌是“用薄空制成”，并违反​​了1933年的《证券法》。

Judge dismisses DFINITY’s case on jurisdiction parameters

法官驳回了Dfinity关于管辖权参数的案件

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，美国地方法院还驳回了针对Dfinity的诉讼，其创始人Dominic Williams和董事会成员Gian Bochsler提起诉讼。 Eftychios Theodorakis提出，该公司对ICP加密代币发表了虚假陈述，并在价值下降之前出售了数百万美元。申诉人辩称，他被欺骗，坚持失去价值的代币。

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.

该诉讼表明，根据加利福尼亚法律规定的疏忽，conversion依，刑罚，侵入动产，故意虚假陈述以及对民用球衣受到影响和腐败的组织（RICO）法案的主张。

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法官得出结论，法院对Williams和Bochsler没有个人管辖权。法官没有发现确定被告有目的地在加利福尼亚运营的实质证据，尽管通过加利福尼亚的加密货币交易所出售了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.

如果没有对原告的RICO索赔管辖权，法官得出结论，法院无法对剩余的针对Dfinity作为公司的州法律索赔行使补充管辖权。