\n
![](\"https:\/\/media.crypto.news\/2024\/07\/crypto-news-An-ambiguous-case-are-the-Tornado-Cash-developers-guilty-option02.webp\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
Chainalysis has defeated most claims brought by Celsius Network\u2019s litigation administrator, but a U.S. judge has allowed an aiding-and-abetting case tied to the lender\u2019s disputed $3.3 billion 2020 \u201caudit\u201d to continue.<\/p>\n
\n Summary<\/span>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled<\/a> on Sept. 29 that Count One of the complaint was sufficiently pleaded, while dismissing 15 consumer-protection claims brought against the blockchain analytics company. Twelve were dismissed with prejudice and cannot be refiled in their current form, while three can be amended by Oct. 20.<\/p>\n Judge Margaret Garnett stressed that the decision was made at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court was required to accept well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true for that purpose, meaning the ruling does not establish that Chainalysis committed the conduct alleged by Celsius.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The remaining claim accuses Chainalysis of aiding and abetting alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Celsius insiders. The Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium, which acts as litigation administrator for the collapsed lender, is pursuing the claim on behalf of Celsius.<\/p>\n The court said<\/a> the complaint adequately alleged that Chainalysis knew a December 2020 press release contained false statements about Celsius\u2019s assets under management and actively participated in spreading them.<\/p>\n Among the allegations reviewed by the court was the claim that Chainalysis helped draft the press release and knew the underlying calculation was not an actual audit or independent verification. The complaint alleges the company approved the word \u201caudit\u201d five times in the release.<\/p>\n Garnett said the allegations went beyond Chainalysis merely standing by while Celsius acted. At this stage, the complaint sufficiently alleged the knowledge and \u201csubstantial assistance\u201d required for an aiding-and-abetting claim.<\/p>\n Chainalysis disputed the allegations in its motion to dismiss and sought dismissal of the entire case.<\/p>\n The dispute centers on how Celsius arrived at the figure it promoted in late 2020.<\/p>\n According to the complaint summarized in the court\u2019s order, Celsius executive Timothy Cradle used Chainalysis Reactor on Nov. 2, 2020 and initially calculated assets under management of approximately $1.177 billion.<\/p>\n The complaint alleges Celsius insiders then changed the methodology, including by accounting for the purported value of Celsius\u2019s own CEL holdings, eventually producing a figure of around $3.3 billion. At the dismissal stage, the court treated those statements as allegations, not established findings.<\/p>\n On Dec. 9, 2020, Celsius announced<\/a> what it described as the completion of an \u201caudit\u201d confirming exactly $3,318,368,196.40 in assets using Chainalysis Reactor.<\/p>\n The release described the work as Celsius\u2019s first third-party asset verification and said the calculation relied on transactions, deposits and withdrawals since the platform launched in June 2018.<\/p>\n Chainalysis executive Jason Bonds was quoted in the release saying the company had helped verify the \u201cprocess and accuracy\u201d of information connected with net funds collected by Celsius. The current complaint alleges that description was materially misleading.<\/p>\n The original release remains publicly available. Its use of terms including \u201caudit,\u201d \u201cindependent verification\u201d and \u201cthird-party verification\u201d forms a central part of BRIC\u2019s surviving claim.<\/p>\n While Count One survived, Chainalysis secured dismissal of almost every other part of the complaint.<\/p>\n The court dismissed Counts Two, Three, Four, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Fourteen and Fifteen with prejudice. The claims were based on various state consumer-protection and deceptive-practices laws.<\/p>\n Several failed because the relevant consumer claims could not legally be assigned to the litigation administrator. Other claims were barred by procedural requirements, statutes of limitations or limitations within individual state consumer laws.<\/p>\n One California claim failed because the court found that the state\u2019s Consumers Legal Remedies Act did not cover the type of crypto-related services alleged in the complaint.<\/p>\n Counts Five, Thirteen and Sixteen were dismissed without prejudice. The court found that the complaint had not identified specific consumers in the relevant states who validly assigned their claims and suffered the alleged harm.<\/p>\n BRIC can attempt to correct those three claims. The order requires<\/a> an amended complaint by Oct. 20, or a letter by the same deadline confirming that the plaintiffs do not plan to amend them.<\/p>\n Chainalysis raised another argument against the surviving fiduciary-duty claim, saying Celsius itself participated in and benefited from the conduct at issue.<\/p>\n Under the legal doctrine known as in pari delicto<\/em>, a party generally cannot recover damages for wrongdoing in which it participated. Chainalysis argued that BRIC effectively stands in Celsius\u2019s shoes and should therefore be blocked from pursuing the claim.<\/p>\n Garnett acknowledged that Chainalysis made a strong argument that Celsius could have received short-term benefits as CEL prices and customer numbers increased.<\/p>\n At the current stage, however, the court said it must accept the complaint\u2019s allegation that the Celsius insiders acted entirely for their own benefit. Because that factual issue could not be resolved from the complaint alone, the judge declined to dismiss Count One on that basis.<\/p>\n The order does not decide whether BRIC will ultimately prove the allegations. Chainalysis can continue contesting liability as the lawsuit moves beyond the dismissal stage.<\/p>\n The Chainalysis case is one part of a larger recovery effort following Celsius\u2019s 2022 collapse.<\/p>\n BRIC reported<\/a> that it filed the Chainalysis case in March 2025 over blockchain-auditing services and public statements connected with Celsius. Chainalysis filed its dismissal motion in May 2025, and briefing was completed that July.<\/p>\n The estate has continued pursuing other counterparties. In September, Celsius filed a separate action seeking roughly 6,360 BTC from BitMEX entities over March 2020 liquidations, with the coins valued near $495 million when the complaint was filed. The allegations in the estate\u2019s $495 million BitMEX lawsuit<\/a> remain unproven.<\/p>\n Creditor distributions have proceeded separately from those cases. Celsius began a third creditor payout worth $220.6 million<\/a> in August 2025, taking reported recoveries at the time to 64.9% of eligible claims.<\/p>\n Legal cases involving former Celsius executives have continued as well. Co-founders Shlomi Daniel Leon and Hanoch \u201cNuke\u201d Goldstein agreed this year to pay a combined $6.5 million to settle FTC claims, while Alex Mashinsky is serving a 12-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to commodities and securities fraud. The FTC settlements involving Celsius co-founders<\/a> were separate from BRIC\u2019s civil case against Chainalysis.<\/p>\n For the Chainalysis litigation, the next fixed deadline is Oct. 20, when BRIC must either amend the three consumer claims dismissed without prejudice or notify Judge Garnett that it will proceed without them.<\/p>\n <\/p><\/div>\n\n\n
Why the $3.3B Celsius \u2018audit\u2019 claim survived<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Celsius first calculated just $1.18B with Reactor<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Chainalysis got 12 claims permanently dismissed<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Chainalysis could not yet block the estate\u2019s main claim<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Celsius estate keeps pursuing recoveries<\/strong><\/h2>\n