My Big Coin: A Trading Price for a Coin That Wasn’t Trading

In the My Big Coin CFTC case, a Massachusetts federal court ordered My Big Coin Pay, Inc., My Big Coin, Inc., their president and a sales agent to pay a $19,326,324 civil penalty and $6,442,108 in customer restitution over false cryptocurrency claims. The default judgment described gold backing that did not exist and trading prices for a coin that was not trading. The bank records led to a house.

The companies operated from Las Vegas. Their customers saw a purported currency they could buy, sell and spend, complete with an exchange and account balances. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s fraud enforcement action reached the sales operation, its management and the movement of customer money. The founder resolved the civil claims against him separately, after a jury convicted him in a criminal case.

Gold Backing, Card Access and an Invented Market

The default judgment found that, from at least January 2014 through at least June 2017, My Big Coin’s sellers promoted a functioning currency with gold behind it, active exchange trading and everyday purchasing power. Those promises reinforced each other. Gold supplied the assurance, the exchange supplied the apparent market, and the payment claims supplied a reason to believe the coin could be used outside its own website.

According to the judgment, the marketing reached customers through websites, YouTube, social media and direct communications. It claimed the coin could be used wherever Mastercard was accepted and that the companies had relationships with major card networks. It also promoted an online mall where customers supposedly could buy products with the currency.

The founder’s civil consent order describes the Commission’s allegation that he claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in gold backing. A sales agent’s email made the gold claim especially pointed. The court reproduced what the agent told a customer:

The Price on the Screen

My Big Coin displayed prices and trading activity that the default judgment found were fictitious. Customers could view account information, purported current prices and reported trading volumes. On one day, the exchange website showed a last trade at $410, a high at $500 and a low at $60. The court found that the coin was not actively traded on any currency or other exchange.

The court’s earlier account of the complaint described the customer problem directly: buyers could see their accounts but could not trade their coins or withdraw funds. The Commission alleged that the operators made up and changed the price to mimic a functioning market. For an employee who knew how the website was updated, the source of that displayed price could be as revealing as the balance itself.

Customer Deposits Became a House

The default judgment traced customer wires and checks into bank accounts, through transfers, and into purchases for personal benefit. The money trail ran through ordinary banking records even though the sales story was about cryptocurrency.

Customers received instructions to send funds to bank accounts held under other business names. The judgment described money moving soon after receipt into other controlled accounts or being withdrawn for purchases. It also found that some customer money went to other customers to conceal the fraud.

One sequence shows the difference between the currency pitch and the use of the money. Customer funds entered an advertising account, moved by cashier’s check into Greyshore LLC’s account, and then went to a Florida real estate settlement company. The transfer carried the notation “Other Home Purchase.” The judgment traced those funds to a home bought for approximately $645,000 by a recipient later dismissed from the civil case.

The roles matter. The court found that the sales agent solicited buyers and directed payments. It found that the companies’ president could control the marketing on their websites, social media and YouTube. An insider’s knowledge of who approved a price, sent payment instructions or controlled an account can connect decisions that otherwise appear in separate records.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s case against FTX also concerned the gap between customer assurances and the destination of customer assets. The agency alleged that assets customers understood were safeguarded were diverted to Alameda Research. The allegations share a pattern: promises of safety while customer money went elsewhere. My Big Coin added an invented market to the sales story.

Why Could the CFTC Bring a Cryptocurrency Fraud Case?

The court allowed the Commission’s My Big Coin case to proceed because it read the Commodity Exchange Act’s commodity definition by category. Bitcoin futures existed, and the complaint sufficiently connected My Big Coin to the same virtual-currency category.

The defendants had argued that My Big Coin could not be a commodity because no futures contract existed for that particular coin. In its September 26, 2018 ruling, the court rejected that approach. It explained that the law groups commodities into categories rather than requiring a separate futures contract for every brand or version.

That ruling let the fraud allegations go forward. The later default judgment supplied findings against the companies, their president and the sales agent.

Different Defendants, Different Civil Outcomes

The founder agreed to resolve the Commission’s allegations in a February 6, 2025 civil consent order, announced by the agency. It required him to pay $7,668,317 in restitution to customers. That individual order also barred specified trading and registration activity.

The companies, their president and the sales agent took a different path. They failed to respond to the amended complaint, and the court entered judgment against them by default on June 5, 2025. The court accepted the complaint’s allegations and entered findings supporting the customer repayments and civil penalty stated above.

Can CFTC Prosecute Criminal Violations?

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission brings civil and administrative enforcement actions. The Justice Department brings criminal prosecutions. In My Big Coin, its Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts prosecuted the founder, and a jury found him guilty on July 21, 2022.

The Justice Department’s account of that criminal case adds concrete detail about the sales operation. The founder paid agents to promote the coin, claimed a Mastercard partnership and advertised an exchange where customers could convert it into government-issued money or other virtual currencies. The department reported that the coin had no gold or other valuable assets behind it, no Mastercard partnership and no ready transferability on the exchange. The same criminal-case account says the founder used customer money to buy a house, cars, and over $1 million in antiques, artwork and jewelry.

What Evidence Is Required to Prove Fraud?

What your evidence can prove is something our whistleblower experts assess with you. In My Big Coin, the court’s findings connected website prices, customer messages and bank transfers to the people who controlled them.

In My Big Coin, the civil judgment’s bank-account trail identified where customers were told to send money and where it went next. That is the kind of connection a payment employee or someone who dealt directly with buyers may understand from daily work. Your knowledge of the account’s purpose, the instructions behind a transfer or the source of a published price can give otherwise disconnected records their meaning.

CFTC whistleblowers can include customers and investors as well as employees. Which information you hold and how it can support enforcement are questions our experts work through with you.

The reward rules differ by program. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission can pay whistleblowers 10% to 30% of the money collected in qualifying enforcement actions. We help you assess the CFTC opportunity around the information you can contribute.

You Know Where the Price Came From

If you know who created the trading figures, approved the backing claims or directed customer money, speak with our whistleblower experts about where the price came from. We work with you to build your strongest CFTC whistleblower case and bring in CFTC whistleblower lawyers who understand digital-asset fraud, staying beside you as the sales story is tested against the money and the records.