Court rejects civil action over Bittrex
The Supreme Court has swept aside a challenge to a Bermuda Monetary Authority decision notice made against Bittrex Global (Bermuda) Ltd last summer.
A court had already ordered the winding-up of the failed digital asset platform in March 2024.
Ultimate beneficial owners of the shares in Bittrex and former directors of the company applied to the Supreme Court for declaratory relief, proposing that certain provisions of the 2018 Digital Asset Business Act are unconstitutional, that they do not comply with requirements of the Bermuda Constitution.
Plaintiffs also argued against the BMA decision notice, that they had not been afforded a right to challenge its making and do not have an independent right of appeal from it to an independent tribunal and/or to the court on a point of law under the Act.
They claimed that those adversely affected by a BMA decision notice were denied an opportunity to challenge or appeal and deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial.
It was also argued that the BMA’s July 18 decision notice issued to Bittrex was unlawful and is liable to be set aside because the BMA procedure did not afford the UBOs and the former directors an opportunity to challenge the BMA's conclusions, and therefore was unconstitutional.
But Puisne Judge Justice Andrew Martin refused the application primarily because the decision notice was issued to Bittrex, which has a separate corporate identity from its shareholders and former directors.
The UBO plaintiffs were Richie Lai, William Shihara and Rami Kawach. The other plaintiffs were former company directors Oliver Linch, Jason Park and Denis Pitcher.
The defendants were the BMA and the Minister of Finance.
The ruling pointed out: “Bittrex was afforded the right to respond to the warning notice before the decision notice was issued to it and has exercised its right of appeal to a tribunal under DABA in respect of the subsequent decision notice which imposed a substantial civil penalty on it inter alia for breaches of the DABA code of conduct to which it was subject.
“Accordingly, no complaint can be made under section 15 of the Constitution that the party legally affected by the decision notice has not had an opportunity to challenge the warning notice, nor that it has not been given a right of appeal from the decision notice.”
The court’s conclusions included: the principle BMA notices were unrelated to any civil right of the plaintiffs; the BMA’s decision notice was valid; the plaintiffs have been denied no rights or due process under the Constitution; and, the relevant DABA provisions do not contravene the Constitution.
The court refused the relief sought and dismissed the plaintiffs’ applications, and awarded the costs of the proceedings to the defendants.
Kyle Masters and Siobhan Boys, of Carey Olsen Bermuda Ltd, appeared for the plaintiffs.
Ben Adamson and Conor Doyle, of Conyers Dill & Pearman Ltd, represented the BMA.
Shakira Dill-Francois, the Solicitor-General, and Lauren Sadler-Best, of the Attorney-General’s Chambers, represented the Minister of Finance.
• For more on the Supreme Court judgment, see Related Media
• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers
