American court hearing recordings and interviews - Bittrex, Inc. January 31, 2024 U.S. bankruptcy court hearing (Delaware bankruptcy case number 23-10597 styled In re Desolation Holdings LLC, et al.)

Episode Date: February 5, 2024

--

All right. Are you seated? You know, somebody could sit over there. We like each other so much, Your Honor. Good morning, Mr. Mouskegon. Good morning, Your Honor. I know that we have a number of parties that are participating today via Zoom, and I have counsel. I have counsel.

In the courtroom? Hang on. We have an echo. All right. At this point, good morning, all this is Judge Shannon. I understand from the court reported that necessary parties have joined. We have parties that are in the courtroom representing the debtor, the confirmed desolation Holdings LLC wind down entity.

This is case number 23-10597. I note also that we have a number of parties that are participating today via Zoom. And if I can, I see some folks on the screen. Can I get a thumbs up that you are able to see and hear me? Great. I see thumbs. That's a good start to my morning. Additionally, thank you, Ms. Habibi, welcome and good to see you.

I do note that there seems to have been a disconnect, and for that, I apologize if it's on us. The Court has a little over two hours for today's hearing. If we don't finish, then we'll have to reconvene at a different time. I don't think that I'd realize that this was going to be the extensive proceeding that we have, and I have matters that are scheduled for this afternoon. So we can also talk a little bit about scheduling if that's necessary. But I'll hear first from Council for the Debtor. Ms. Tommaso, good morning.

Welcome back. It's good to see you. Good morning, Your Honor. It's great to be here again. Not quite Groundhog Day. But we're here again with respect to certain contested claim objection here matters. On the agenda, we get all the way to page 14 before we get to the matters going forward. These are the objections to three Iranian citizens who make claims in these cases.

We also have the seventh omnibus, which is item six and seventh omnibuses, which are the items 31 and 32 on the agenda. To get started, Your Honor, I have a dreaded PowerPoint. Okay. Just to, as we say, you know, guide the discussion somewhat, if I could. get I had that. May I brought your honor? Yes. And I brought extra for your clerk today, not making the same mistake twice.

Very good. Thanks. Your Honor, we got the message about the court having limited time today. I'm going to make a brief factual introduction and then I'm going to propose an idea for how we might be able to finish today. Okay. Just briefly the introduction, we have three Iranian claimants in alphabetical order, Abbasi, are and Momenzada. We have four debtors, all of which have been consolidated into the wind-down entity supervised by the plan administrator David Maria. The claims filed by Abasi

total 2.6 million, the claims filed by Arapore, total 3 million. The claims filed by Momenzata total 2.2 million. Some of the claims assert priority and secured rights. Now granted, certain of these claims were withdrawn. On page 5, five of the presentation you can see that those claims were reduced somewhat their actual account balances are Abasi zero or a poor eight point four eight thousand dollars and Almencida is a little more than three thousand dollars just briefly with respect to the histories of each of the claimants mr. Abasi opened his account in October just one second this

This is Judge Shannon. I'm going to ask that any party that's participating via Zoom, please place your microphone on mute unless you are speaking to the court. We're getting a little bit of feedback. Thank you. Ms. Tomasco, you may proceed. Thank you. Mr. Abasi opened his account in October of 2017.

That's Exhibit 51. Mr. Abasi agreed to the 2015 Terms of Service. That's Exhibit 31. Mr. Abasi agreed to Buss's terms of service, Exhibit 52 at page 8 Mr. Abasi agreed to the 2018 in Bittrick's International Terms of Service Exhibit 52 at 15 December 19th of February 20th. Mr. Abasi took advantage of the OFAC license, which this court is aware, and withdrew all of the assets in his account that could be withdrawn. Now, notwithstanding the fact that Abassi's account balance is zero, Mr. Abasi filed 13 proofs of claim, claiming $200,000 in each of them for a total of $2.6 million. Despite this, the fact that Mr. Abbasi withdrew all of his assets, he made these claims against the estate.

He withdrew nine of his claims, even four surviving claims totaling $800,000. At the December 13, 2023 hearing, Mr. Abasi further reduced his claim to $132,000. That's Exhibit 70, which is the transcript at page 53 to 54. Mr. Arapore opened his account with Bittrex in June of 2017, Mr. Arapore agreed to the 2015 terms of service. In 2019 to 2020, Mr. Arapore did not take advantage of the OFAC license, but in June of 2020, Mr. Arapore wrote to Bittrex, I received your email to inform me about the process to transfer an asset. I failed to complete the process in due course. So Mr. Arapore acknowledged that he got the O-FAC license withdrawal notice but failed to take advantage of it in time. In November 22, Araport contacted Bittrex, representing that he was then arrested in Turkey.

Bittrex could not release his assets at that time in light of the OFAC regulations. Mr. Arapore never conclusively proved that he lived in Turkey. Mr. Arapore filed 10 proofs of claim, claiming 300,000 each for a total of $3 million. Mr. at the December 13, 2023 hearing, Ereport reduced his claim to $300,000, and that's the 1213-23 hearing transcript at page 61. However, Mr. Arupore's account balance is approximately $8,473. That's Exhibit 62. Momenzada opened the Pitch's account in June of 2017. He agreed to the 2015 terms of service.

Mr. Miminsida agreed to the 28th's account. terms of service, that's Exhibit 67 at 4. Mr. Menzada did not take advantage of the OFAC license. There was no communication whatsoever from Mr. Mominzaa in response to the notice. In November 2022, Mr. Momenzada contacted Vitrix, claiming he resided in Turkey and asking Bittricks to reactivate his account. His account remained disabled because he was unable to conclusively show that he resided in Turkey. Mr. Mominsada filed 11 proofs of claim in varying amounts totaling $2.2 million.

Mr. Momenzada withdrew six proofs of claim his surviving claims total $1.5 million. At the December 13, 2020, 233 hearing, Mr. Momenzata reduces claim to 23,839. That's the December 13, 2020, hearing at page 64. Mr. Momenzata's account balance is approximately $3,000. So the seminal issue in these claim objections, You've finally broken loose from work. Three friends, one tea time, and then the text. Honey, there's water in the basement.

Not exactly how you pictured your Saturday. That's when you call us, Cincinnati Insurance. We always answer the call, because real protection means showing up, even when things are in the rough. Cincinnati Insurance, let us make your bad day better. Find an agent at CINFIN.com. that the 2015 terms of service apply to them. Exhibit 31, again in alphabetic order,

the response of Adel Abasi, Mr. Abasi represents, I have not accepted any terms other than those terms of service dating version 2015 with Fitzger's LLC. As a result, any objections raised by the debtor are null and void because they can't impose on me the terms of service for which I was not eligible and did not have eligibility. you'll recognize that there is a threat among all of these claimants. The, Mr. Mominsida also says in his response to the claim objection that he only agreed to the 2015 terms of service, that's Exhibit 24.

Mr. Aripur admits that he agreed to the 2015 terms of service at Exhibit 18, saying, I only agreed to the 2015 terms of service with Bittrick's LLC. These claimant statements and their responses to the claimant objections that they accepted the 2015 terms of service bind them in this case. We cited cases in the PowerPoint I'll read them quickly into the record. Berkeley Investment Group versus Colquit 45 F3rd 195 Third Circuit 2006 and Glick versus white motor company 4.58 F. 2nd, 1287. The parties proceeded in this case on the basis of the judicial admissions contained in the responses

to the claim objections as well as the reduction of the claims at the hearing, which was the beginning of this claim objection hearing that we started on December 15th. Now, what does the 2015 Terms of Service say? They limit the liability. They say, you don't get consequential, lost profits, any of those kinds the damages. You get your coins back, you get your Fiat back if you have that, but you don't get consequential damages. They also say that PITRICS can suspend or terminate the service for any reason at any time. They also say that currencies can be made unavailable. So certain coins can be delisted and certain coins can be taken off the platform and not tradable. Those

terms of service also contain conditions and restrictions. They could refuse any transaction. They could refuse your ability to trade. And those would not create liability for Bittrix, even without a limitation of liability. We've gone through them ad nauseum in our claim objections. Now, the terms of service also have a Washington choice of law. Washington would also be the nexus if you were to apply

a complex of law analysis, because these claimants are in Iran. Bittrick's was principal place of business has always been in Seattle. The three-year statute of limitations under Washington law would bar each of the enumerated causes of action in each of the claimant's proofs of claim. Again, these three Iranian claimants

do not articulate how their facts fit into these causes of action. They just say, I have a cause of action for negligence negligent misrepresentation conversion breach of fiduciary duty unjust enrichment personal injury emotional distress civil conspiracy and breach of the implied covenant good faith and fair dealing we set forth on slide 20 that each of the of the applicable statutes of limitation for those enumerated causes of action are three years so what does that get to us let's get us back to what I call the four square which is on slide 21.

I'm there. So, either you have a contract claim or you have a tort claim. You can't have both. So if you have a contract claim, if the contract itself bars the damages that these claimants seek. It says, we shall have no liability to you

other than to return your coins, which, of course, Bittrick's is, is prepared to do provided that the OFAC issue can be resolved. In other words, if the claimants prove that they are not ordinarily resonating around. In addition, with respect to certain elements of defunct, what we call defunct crypto under the plan, plan section 6A4 says specifically, we are not going to distribute defunct crypto. That would include the Lomo coin and some of the other coins that you may hear about. The other thing is those coins are worthless. They have been worthless for years.

Even if you said I want my lo-mo coin back, we're talking about, you know, tens of cents of dollars. So, and the plan says we don't have to give it back. And the plan also has a minimum distribution provision, which is also in Section 6A of the plan. Now, with respect to any tort claims, obviously those are barred by the three-year statute of limitations. As the court knows, the issues with respect to the suspension of services until the OFAC license all occurred before May 8th of 2020. So the OFAC license period, the suspension of services, when they could have gotten it back if they had responded to the OFAC license, all of those occurred well before they could have brought a claim in this case. So looking backwards, the only thing that they have would be in that lower right-hand corner, And that would require that they show, you and I probably refer to it as the economic loss rule,

Washington State uses the independent duty rule, but they would have to establish that that matrix had an independent duty separate and apart from the contract in order to impose liability. None of their allegations have come even close to meeting that standard. And on that basis, they have no claims. So what do we do today to make this efficient for everyone? Your Honor, the plan administrator is going to invoke federal rule of civil procedure 42B. That rule amazingly, because 1914 really should include more of the federal rules in contested matters. But amazingly, it is made applicable by bankruptcy rule 914.

It says for convenience to avoid prejudice or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, cross claims, counterclaims, or third-party claim. So my suggestion to the court is, if the terms of service were accepted, the limitation of liability permits account suspension in Bittrex's sole discretion, permits Coindu listing, in Vitrix's sole discretion, that's dispositive. Now, is there a factual issue as to whether or not they accepted the 2015 terms of service? No. They've admitted that they accepted the 2015 terms of service. Now even if they said, well, that's not really a judicial admission, we'll put on evidence. On the sole issue of, did they accept the 2015 terms of service when they created their accounts on Bitris? show you the IP laws with which you're now familiar.

We'll show you, you know, all of the things that happen to show that they did accept the 2015 terms of service. Two of them accepted the 2018 terms of service for Bertrits International, and we can go through that. But just that. If they've accepted the terms of service, what claims are left? None. Now, let's just say they've pleaded a laundry list of non-contractual causes of action. Do any of the facts that they rely on, do any of them occur after May 8th of 2020?

And if we narrow it down to a theoretical basis that maybe something happened after that time period, well then we can talk about that. But I can tell you that we're not going to talk about anything that happened before May 8th because those are time barred. So to narrow the issues, the court has a discretion to invoke federal rule of civil procedure made applicable by bankruptcy rule 1914. The other thing, the other rule we're going to invoke is the rule. Federal Rule of Evidence 615.

At a party's request, the court must order witnesses excluded from the courtroom so that they cannot hear each other's witnesses' testimony. So you will see here, and we got a raft of exhibits from an Iranian lawyer, Farshid Malanian. who purports to represent all three of the Iranian claimants, but he is not a U.S. lawyer. So what are we going to do? We request that each Iranian creditor claim be heard separately. That means that when we're dealing with one Iranian claimant, the other two need to be off the Zoom. Mr. Farshide Malanian

cannot be on the Zoom because the rule cannot be invoked if you have a foreign lawyer purporting to represent all three shuttling information between them. Let me ask a question about Rule 615 though. Each of these individuals are parties. So your proposal is to use Rule 42B

to do each claim objection separately. Otherwise parties are not subject to segregation. So if we were did, with these collectively then they would be all those parties would be permitted to attend because parties are permitted to attend is that a fair correct assessment so at that point then I think I'm trying we'll separate the issue of whether mr. Melania can represent parties in connection with this proceeding I guess I'm trying to figure out whether or not the interest

of efficiency. I get that the debtor is choosing to invoke this rule to try to have a proceeding that is as efficient as possible, but it also, from your presentation, appears that the debtor will reduce precisely the same record. We have... In each, or, or, and precisely the same arguments in the context of each of these claim objections, you are going to say if we, if we move Mr. Abbas, if we keep Mr. Abbas, and we deal with him first and we move the other two into a Zoom room, so they're segregated. I assume from your presentation that you will adduce testimony through Mr. Maria or otherwise that says,

Mr. Abasi signed on. Our record show that he signed on on this date. Our record show that he clicked the box accepting the terms of service. How do you know that? And I'm only quoting this because this is the testimony that I heard. Right. But he'll testify that you couldn't move past that page to set up your account without accepting those terms. Here's the date and then here's the consequence of what happens from that. Wouldn't it be precisely the same thing then for Mr. Arapora and Mr. Mulman-Zada? We have three separate directs prepared. In other words, we filed three separate claim objections.

This is not an honest. I don't dispute any of that. Right. And so we would in that instance have three separate hearings. Now I will tell you that if we are able to limit it only to the terms of service, we would not necessarily invoke the rule. In other words, we would allow, for efficiency's sake, do one presentation solely on whether the 2015 terms of service were accepted,

2018 terms of service were accepted. We could do that as a group, but if we're going to go into matters beyond whether or not the terms of service were accepted, then we are going to invoke the rule. So I want to make that clear. If we're only doing acceptance of terms of service, we can do a holistic presentation that addresses all three claimants, if that makes sense. It does. I understand the argument. I think at this point I need to hear from either the claimants or their proposed counsel,

and I do have essentially before me the debtor's objection to the participation of counsel for these individuals. One other concern that we have, and I swear we're not going to, I swear we're not, But we would like during the hearing that the claimants' cameras remain on. I know that you allow pro se claimants to appear via Zoom, and that makes a lot of sense to us. But we've had so much cross talk in between these claimants. Our concerns are that they are feeding information to each other, and a lot of it is not accurate. is not accurate it's going to interfere with the presentation of truthful testimony in our opinion so during the hearing we would like for the claimant's cameras to remain on at all

times I understand can I just circle back and then I'll hear from proposed counsel on the gating question that the debtor has raised about whether or not counsel can participate but I'd like you to kind of just recap the debtors' opposition to participation by the Iranian Council in this proceeding. Number one, the claimants have proceeded on a pro se basis. You'll recall that we started the claim objection hearing on December 13th of 2023. Council did not participate in that. Each of the claimants presented their arguments via Google Translate, maybe, with some recording.

I recall. While I'm happy to be very indulgent of pro se claimants, they've said their piece. They've made their effectively opening statements. Mr. Melanian, here's some of the things that we've had to deal with over the last few days. Mr. Melanian purports to be acting on behalf of the three Iranian claimants.

He is not, however, licensed in the United States. I might, we have, he's obviously Mr. Goddor's counsel. We have a retention agreement between Mr. Goddard and Mr. Melanian that's dated some time ago. What this appears to be, though, is counsel can obviously help them fill out their proofs of claim, can help them with their pleadings, but what counsel from a foreign jurisdiction cannot do is to appear in a U.S. court in any capacity, including with respect to advising or going between the claimants with respect to their testimony.

Each claimant has a different circumstance. Mr. Abasi withdrew all of its crypto during the OFAC license period in January of 2020. And Mr. Mominsida never got the message about the OFAC license. Mr. Arab Borg got the message about the OFAC license but didn't act in time. They all have vastly different stories to tell. And yet in their proofs of claim, they used exactly the same language saying, I was not able to get my crypto off because I got ineffective assistance from Bitrex. That can't be true with respect to Mr. Abbasi. He got all of his crypto off.

And it can't be true with respect to Mr. Arapur. He admitted. He didn't respond in time. But what we have is these cookie cutter pleadings that are being put in front of the court. And while it may be laughable in one instance, it makes our job extremely difficult to get to the truth. because we have this sort of go-between acting truthfully in my opinion on behalf of Mr. Godder

and not on behalf of these claimants not licensed in the United States not licensed to appear here his participation in this hearing is is going to make getting to the truth more difficult not more not easier I understand all right so counsel has advised the debtors position with respect to presentation of its three separate claim objections relating to Mr. Abbasi, Mr. Arapore, and Mr. Momanzata. The gating question, I think, in terms of how this proceeding will occur is whether it is appropriate for the court to permit Mr. Melanian, essentially to represent and advocate for the claimants in connection with this hearing. Is Mr. Melanian on the line or on Zoom? Yes, Your Honor.

I'm here and it is one pleasure to represent the creditors before you. All right, thank you very much for appearing. I certainly appreciate your participation this morning. I trust that you were able to hear counsel for Bitrex, Ms. Tomasco, with respect to her objection to your participation in that proceeding. Were you able to hear that, sir? Yes, thank you, yes. Okay.

So I would observe, and again, this is Judge Shannon, I have observed that this is sort of the first question that needs to be addressed by the court is the extent to which you can participate in today's proceeding on behalf of the three separate claimants whose claims have been objected to. You have heard Ms. Tomasco's opposition and a request that I prevent you from playing that role, and I would be happy to hear your response, sir. Thank you, Your Honor. It would be your pleasure to represent the creditors before you. By the way, I'm here for fairness, justice, and equity. And if you find it fine and just, I'm here to represent the creditors. I'm here to testify and I'm here to explain everything that may help the court to find the truth and the rule and rule in the best possible way.

So I know I'm not the lawyer licensed by U.S. bars, but I think I can help the creditors because they do not have. have access to the lawyer in the United States because of the sanctions and in other words, no longer way will accept them to represent. So and understand the economic barriers and also the other barriers that sanctions have produced. So it is up to you. Judge Shannon, if you accept, I'm here to testify or represent the creditors or explain in any

angle fine just and proper. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Malani, and I very much appreciate your offer to participate and to attempt to assist both the claimants as well as the court in proceeding with this matter. I am going to sustain the debtor's objection to your participation in this proceeding. And in so ruling, again, I appreciate the offer and I'm sensitive to the concerns that you have expressed that it may be difficult for Mr. Abasi, Mr. Momenzada, and Mr. Arapur, to fully engage and represent and vindicate their interests in this proceeding.

and I am obliged to conduct the proceeding in a way that abides by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which is to ensure the just and fair and economical administration of justice. And so, again, I appreciate your offer to assist with that process, but I don't believe that it is proper for several grounds. First, as a threshold matter, as an attorney not licensed in the United States, I'm not even certain that I have the discretion to permit you to practice in this court. But regardless, I would not exercise that discretion if I had it. I note further that the rules of this court require that counsel that is not a member of the Delaware Bar affiliate with Delaware Council prior to, participating in a proceeding in the federal courts here in Delaware.

The record reflects that that in fact has not occurred. And indeed, some of the challenges that Ms. Tomasco has expressed in terms of trying to manage or navigate this process articulate the reason for why this jurisdiction has always required local counsel, even affiliation for counsel who are members of a bar of the, of one of the states of the United States other than Delaware. But again, under the circumstances, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to permit you to represent as counsel these claimants,

and I would sustain the debtor's objection, and I would not be prepared to hear further argument, testimony, or presentation from you today. Again, I appreciate your offer, but I have made my ruling. Ms. Tomasco, that brings us then to the next question, which is how the debtor intends to proceed. Do you intend to request essentially three serial proceedings? I believe that we have the ability to put participants that are on Zoom into a Zoom room that's out of here,

that's not here, but I'm looking over at Mr. Court Reporter. Maybe I can make it more simple for the court, Your Honor, If we're able to bifurcate the trial into whether or not they accepted the terms of service and then have the court rule on that, whether that's sufficient to sustain the claim objections without hearing additional evidence, we can proceed as a group. But if we're not going to grant the Rule 42 motion, then we would ask that they be tried separately. So I think I am reluctant to cabin the proceeding as described. I understand and I don't disagree that it would be more efficient.

But as noted, I'm dealing with claimants that are representing themselves. Case law teaches and my practice is that a measure of flexibility is afforded. and the premise of your argument is to limit the discussion to that question of the terms of service. It may be, as the debtor has argued in this proceeding as well as in the trial that we've just held, that that issue is dispositive. But I think at this point I would want to afford the claimants an opportunity to address the court. I'm not saying that the debtor can't object or argue that either evidence or testimony is beyond the scope of what is relevant to the court's decision at this point. But I think that I am not prepared to conduct a proceeding today that is limited to that one line.

The other point that I would make is that we had a fairly extensive hearing, back in December that I recall that was about the claimant's request for broader discovery. My recollection is, and the record reflects, that I denied the request for broader discovery that would have pursued a variety of theories to which the debtor objected and alleged were not legally sufficient.

So I don't want any uncertainty. I am laser-focused and, I think, fully cognizant of the argument that the debtor is making, the relatively narrow band of information that's relevant to establishing that argument or what may be relevant to consider it. But in order to ensure that parties have the opportunity to be heard and that I in fact have the full record, I'm not prepared to, in advance of hearing the statements or testimony of these claimants, precluded as tightly as the debtor has requested. So I think that that probably leaves us

with your Rule 42 request and the request to segregate the parties. We're slicing and dicing here, Your Honor. So two things. One is we have brought back the interpreter. at our expense to assist with the hearing for their she is here for the claimants great to make it even more efficient we're going to suggest that we do a joint examination of mr. Maria and then invoke the rule with respect to when we're examining each of the Iranian claimants that might be

a little more efficient in terms of getting done today. Mr. Inos, did you wish to be heard, or did you want to confer with Ms. Tomaska? I could confer with both Mr. Mosca, I think it appears to me that the claimants may have brought back Ms. Hibibi. I'm realizing we have our own interpreter that is Mr. Faroo-ie. Okay. So if someone could just clarify that, I don't think we need both interpreters, and I think we're fine. with Ms. Habibi I just want to make sure there's no confusion here to get two interpreters on the phone right now yeah we got our own interpreter I thought it was miss Habebe when she showed up today but apparently it's mr.

yeah well if each side has brought their own interpreter again the parties may use their interpreter as they wish the court can control that process but I don't necessarily I don't know if there's a sense one way or the other. I've not, Mr. Perughey, I see you on the camera this morning, and welcome, sir. It's good to see you. Thank you for participating, and I do recall Ms. Habibi from our hearings just earlier this month. Welcome, ma'am. It's good to see you again. Thank you, Your Honor.

Let me do this. I think that I don't know what to do about the interpreters. Me neither. If we could, Your Honor, Ms. Habibi could just confirm that she wasn't back to by the claimants we know at least why she's here because we had no idea that they had retained an interpreter. Ms. Habibi, good after her, good morning, it's good to see you. Were you engaged by the claimants in this proceeding to assist them as you had in the prior proceeding? The honor, I believe I was. I worked through an interpretation agency and they're the ones who asked me to be today.

I, and I believe it was the same client that they had. client that they have. Okay, let's do this. If I understood your suggestion, Ms. Tomasco, it would be to conduct a combined hearing for the testimony of Mr. Maria. I think that that would make sense and that would afford Mr. Abbasi, Mr. Arabpor and Mr. Momenzada, the opportunity to examine serially Mr. Maria and would get all of the debtor's evidentiary record in today. That's fine. And I think that we should proceed that way. We're going to take just a five-minute break right now. I realize we are pressed for time, but I would ask that you use the time, one, to sort out how the parties wish to proceed with the two interpreters.

I'm not looking to burden anybody. And again, if each side wants their own interpreter, I am completely fine with that. But if there's a consensus that we don't need, both of these folks, then somebody can make a decision on that. I will leave that to the parties and I'll be guided, but you should have a discussion about that without me in the middle of it. The second thing is, again, we'll take Mr. Maria's testimony, the three claimants will participate. I would observe that if you are hoping to make that kind of progress today, bifurcating each of the three separate witnesses might be a little complicated. I would be prepared. I would be prepared. to order that the witnesses, that the claimants put their cameras on, and I would be prepared,

I would be prepared to make that direction consistent with the authority the court has under Civil Rule 43, which applies in bankruptcy proceedings. Civil Rule 43 addresses the taking of testimony, and it provides that the court may take remote testimony in compelling circumstances with appropriate safeguards in order to ensure the integrity of the proceeding. I certainly find that there are compelling circumstances for these claimants who have filed claims and engaged in proceedings in this court. I find it is compelling circumstances to permit them to testify remotely. The record suggests that it is not a simple task to get a visa to come from the United States, from Iran to the United States.

I have no issue with that. But given the concerns that have been expressed, and frankly the relatively limited burden associated with it, I would direct that the claimants put the cameras on during these proceedings. If that is responsive at all to the concerns that the debtor has in terms of dealing with all of the claimants at once, so be it if the debtor wants the sequestration, I believe that that is the debtor's prerogative, and I believe Rule 615 is mandatory. I'm just observing that it might be complicated in the relatively limited time you have.

The other point that I would make is that if indeed we're not going to finish today and you have till 12, 15 Eastern time, then some of these issues may be addressed when we reconvene, which would be at a time of the party's convenience, not this week because I am traveling. So why don't we take five minutes?

We'll sort out the interpreters and figure out our path forward and again I appreciate everyone's patience with that we will stand in recess five please be seated before we get going we are reconvening right now in the matter of desolation holdings known as bitrex which is case number two three dash one zero five nine seven we took a short break to discuss some of the mechanics of moving forward with our proceeding today my understanding is that there may be parties that are joining or have jumped on to this morning's zoom in order to participate in

in the Z News Status Conference in the Subchapter 5 case that is scheduled for 11 a.m. That status conference has been canceled. The court has asked for an email report on the status of that case by email to counsel this morning from my deputy. But the Z News status conference is off. We are proceeding with trial on this matter. Ms. Tomasco, welcome back. Where do we stand? Your Honor, we're going to, we dismissed our interpreter.

We're going to proceed with the group direct of aggregated direct of Mr. Maria. We believe if the cameras can remain on and we can eliminate, for two reasons, Your Honor, eliminate people who are not either the claimants or representing the plan administrator that we can proceed. One is, again, we want to make sure that everybody's not being assisted with their testimony. The other reason is that this will be, you know, where you live, what is your passport number, all of that kind of thing. So as we begin the testimony, we think that the courtroom and the virtual courtroom should be cleared of all non-essential participants, including the participants on Zoom from Womble, who obviously represent Mr. Goddard he's not a party to these claim objections we are going to be talking about PII with respect to these claimants I also see on the Zoom somebody Leah Lerman from the DOJ I don't know that she should be hearing this

although I don't know what arguments she might have for being here mr. Maloney is still on the okay the request is for implementation of the court's protocol which is that as we turn to live testimony video participation in the proceeding is limited to parties and so on that basis I will direct that those parties those individuals that have signed on as parties may remain those parties those individuals that have signed on but are not parties to the proceeding must be removed to a separate Zoom room to be permitted back if and when testimony concludes.

In addition, the court would specifically note that Mr. Melanian is not a party. Again, the court has expressed its appreciation for his offer to assist with this proceeding, but the court will direct that Mr. Melanian likewise be removed from the active observing Zoom room at this time. I'm going to ask that that occur and that the court reporter removed parties at this point. We're about to call and swear in Mr. Maria for his testimony. All right. While the court reporter is taking those steps, I assume the debtor calls Mr. Maria.

Correct, Your Honor. Your Honor, the plan administrator calls himself to the stand. Mr. David Maria. And, Your Honor, if I may, as one of the two, interpreters hired. Which one of us has been requested to stay on? We're going to allow Ms. Habibi to stay on. Mr. Faroovi, we appreciate your appearing today. We greatly appreciate your assistance, but we assume that Ms. Habibi being more familiar should stay on.

Understood. She is the choice of the non-English speaking participant. All right, Mr. Faroo-y-law. Mr. Farooge, thank you very much for your participation today, and be well, sir. Thank you very much, Your Honor, and thank you, everyone. Have a good day. Okay. I trust that the court reporter has taken the necessary steps. At this point, then, Mr. Maria, welcome.

We will swear the witness. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do. Please state your last name and spell it for the record. Maria M-A-R-I-A. B-E-C.

Welcome, sir. Have a seat. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Maria, briefly state your role with the debtor for the court. I'm the plan administrator. As of the effective date, and prior to that, I was the General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer at Bitrix, Incorporated. As the plan administrator, have he familiarized yourself with the background facts with respect to the three claim objections that we're hearing today with respect to Ms. SIRS, Abasi, Aripur, and Miminsda? I have.

Let's turn to Exhibit 51. in your book can you identify that document this is a printout from our uh system regarding the opening of the account with uh from mr adele abasi um and when did mr abasi open an account with bittricks mr abasi opened his account i'm looking to see here i know it was in october of 2017 october uh 14th i believe 2000 i'm sorry that's not right that was when to shut down who's I don't know it has in here, but it is October 2017 when he opened his account with Pitchiex. How does this get populated, this form? So this is information that's entered by the customer signing up, whether it happened on the day of the sign-up or whether it was at a later date, it would have been entered by the customer.

Your Honor, we still have. participants from the Womble Dix Womble firm on the Zoom we could correct that Elisar Cozman and Marcy McLaughlin Smith before we remove those parties I would ask if there's an objection or a demand to participate or well hearing no response I will direct the court reporter to move those parties yeah there's two people Marcy and Elizar's being Marcy and Elizar You may proceed. Oh, sorry, Your Honor.

Okay. If I, Exhibit 51, I'm going to call it the account opening details. Would the procedure for the account opening be the same for all three claimants, Abasi, Arapore, and Mominsda? It would. I mean, this is just a print out of what's in the system. The account opening would have been where they go to the log on page. On page one, they have to enter their email, which becomes their username, enter a password,

which then has to be confirmed and then below that there is a toggle on toggle off check mark with a hyperlink to the terms of service they would have to click on the terms of service and then click the check mark indicating they accepted the terms of service in order to get past the first log on page yes I move for the admission of exhibit 51 did Bittrex disable mr. Abasi's account at any time yes it did And when was that? That would have been disabled in a couple weeks after he opened it, after receiving the OFAC subpoena.

So October 10th, I believe we determined was when the subpoena was received. So within a day, I think it was 11, 12th, something like that, would have been when it was disabled. Is the same true with respect to the claimants, Arab Port, and M.O.M.N. Yes, anyone who had a nexus to Iran or one of the other sanctioned jurisdictions would have been disabled at that time. Why was Bittrix required to disable Mr. Abassi's account? Well, they shouldn't have been able to open their accounts in the first place. As we've discussed in the past, these individuals all signed up with addresses in Iran, as well as passports from there.

So they had a nexus to a sanctioned jurisdiction. Bittricks became aware that it was not permitted to allow customers in sanctioned jurisdictions when they received a no-fax subpoena and then discussed it with outside parties in October of 2017. Is the same true with respect to Mr. Arapore and Momenzada? Yes, with each of them they signed up or shortly after signing up, they provided addresses of residency in Iran as well as passports from Iran. During its relationship with Mr. Abasi Lominsida in the airport, did Bittricks apply for a license that would allow parties with a nexus to Iran to withdraw assets in their account? Yes, so after receiving the subpoena and beginning to respond to the OFAC subpoenas and engaging in a dialogue with OFAC in or around April of 2018,

Bittrix with the assistance of outside counsel filed license applications with OFAC listing the accounts implicated by each of the sanctioned jurisdictions and sought approval to get licenses to release funds to those individuals and those jurisdictions. Let's look at Exhibit 72. Can you identify this document? I can. So this would be one of the license. Actually, sure. Yes, this would be the license application submitted by outside counsel, which was Perkins, Coohy at the time, for licenses in the sanctioned jurisdictions. It was dated April 28, 2018. Let's turn to Exhibit 73. What is this document? In the past one, I believe, was just the Iranian one. There were similar ones for the other jury. restrictions for 72. 73 would be the license that was granted by OFAC allowing the this is I rate the

Iranian specific license as it says at the top of the page granted in September of two that again I think we saw this last time says September 26 1,019 but my recollection is this was 2019 I think we received word of it and received it shortly thereafter either at the end of September or early October. I move for the admission of exhibit 72 and 73, Your Honor. Any objections to the admission of these documents, which are exhibit 72 and 73? Hearing no response, those documents are admitted. Ms. Tomasco, I think the way that we agreed to move forward thus far is that Mr. Abasi, Mr. Momenzada, and Mr. Arborr-Poor are both.

are all three participating in this hearing and listening to mr. Maria's testimony I would ask just to confirm that they're that they're on and they're able to hear us so mr. Abasi this is judge Shannon are you on and can you hear the proceedings today? I'm very here very sorry here I'm very I'm very much of the time. I'm at all right.

I'm not yet so much I'm doing. I'm on a person, if you're able to be did, if I can't. Yes, I am on, and, excuse me, present. But I've had major oral surgery

and I'm unable to speak very a lot. A document, The document presenting my case has been set to the interpreter, and if you allow, she will read it. Okay, well, we'll deal with that at the appropriate point, but I'm, I certainly hope that you recover well, Mr. Abasi. I just wanted to make sure as we get into the proceeding that you and your, uh, uh, uh, and the other claimants are able to hear us. So as to Mr. Momenzada, sir, are you on the Zoom and are you able to hear the proceedings? MS.

Yes, I hear you very well, and I am able to see the documents. Very good. And finally, I believe Mr. Arab Poor. Sir, are you able to hear and see the proceedings? Salam be the Cazia Mootaur and Daug. Yes, I'm sorry to be sure. I'm sorry, and I'm doing it, hello to the Honorable Judge in the Court.

Yes, I'm able to hear you and... Very good. Again, I apologize, Ms. Tomasco for the interruption, but I wanted to make sure that we didn't have any issues and that the three claimants were actually on for the benefit of this proceeding. You may move forward. I will note, Your Honor, that two of the claimants don't have

their cameras on. The court has directed that each of the claimants leave their camera on, and so I would ask that you do so, and we can move forward. Mr. Mosca, you may proceed. Thank you, Your Honor. Did Bitrix let Mr. Abasi know of the OFAC license that he could withdraw his crypto from the platform? So, Bitrix would have sent out emails to anyone impacted by this to the email address

on file. the first round would have gone out in early November once we had taken these in and put a process in place. So they would have gotten in November and then potentially monthly after that. But yes, each of them would receive that email. Can we look at exhibit 53 and identify that for the court? I believe 53 is a collection of the Zendes tickets between Mr. Abasi and Bittricks. If we could look at pages 25 to 28 of that exhibit, please. Yes. And what does that show?

So on page 25, this is a back and forth between Mr. Abasi and our Zendes at Bittricks. December 3rd, 2019, Mr. Abasi is inquiring. This appears to be in response to receiving the email, notifying of the license. So sometime after the November email, Mr. Abasi writes in giving his account info, giving his balances, and asking for the balances to be withdrawn to a different address and providing a passport. How did Mr. Abasi receive the OFAC license transfer form? It would have been in the email that he received giving notice of the process. Now, did Mr. Abasi take advantage of the OFAC license?

He did. So as is evident from this communication, Bittrick's did what they've done. They made a request for additional information to ensure his identity. So they respond essentially telling him he needs to provide proof of identity, provide selfies with holding a government ID and holding a piece of paper with Bittrick's and the date on it and do three separate angles of that picture. We move for the admission of Exhibit 53. All right.

Any objection to the admission of Exhibit 503? very well that exhibit is admitted so in terms of assets associated with mr. Abasi's account could you turn to exhibit 54 and say what that represents yes this would have been I believe what he had in his account at the time of the the withdrawals pursuant to the OFAC license so the back and forth he he did what he needed to do if you look at the previous exhibit on 53 provided all the photos requested, provided proof of his government ID and the pictures, went through the process, and then was permitted to have these assets, which are shown in 54, sent to the wallets

that he designated on the license transfer form, all which was blessed by the OFAC license process. Can you describe what LMC is? LMC is a delisted token that used to be listed called Lomo coin. Does Lomo coin have any value? As of now, I think it's zero if you look it up, but if you go further down the decimals, it's really not traded at all, but it's worth 0.000.1 cents if you look at some of the different websites that show those values. What does the plan provide for with respect to de-listed coins?

The listed coins are not to be, just nothing happens with them. There's no way to transfer them. There's no wallets for them. There's no ability to do anything with them, and ones like this have no value whatsoever. Move for the admission of Exhibit 54. All right. Any objection to its admission? Very well.

that is admitted. Let's turn to Exhibit 52. Yes, I haven't. If you could turn to the last page of that, page 18. Page 18, sorry. First of all, what is this document? So this would be the IP logs, logging all of the activity from Mr. Abasi.

Okay, on page 18, what do we see? So page 18, this is into 2019. Page 18 reflects that on this date he logged in and explained why and was directed to the Bittrick's US website and prompted to and then did accept the Bittrick's U.S. Terms of Service in 2019. Let's look at Exhibit 31. You familiar with this document? I am. We could turn to the second page?

Yes. You see paragraph 3? I have. I'm sorry, I do see it. Okay. And what is Mr. Abasi? say about accepting the 2015 terms of service there says I've not accepted any terms other than of the terms of service dating version 2015 with Bittrick's

LLC so mr. Abasi admits that he signed on to the 2015 terms of service do you also know this to be true from a Bittrick's systems standpoint well yes I mean the 2015 one as I explained a few minutes ago you could not sign up without accepting those terms of service it would stop you on that page so you needed to click that mr. Abasi then there is going through the IP logs what you just showed me on page 18 he because he if you look on I'm sorry if we can go back to page 18 there page 18 of exhibit 15 yes please so as you see in the the column between the date and the true it says the US and then

in the final two columns SES satellite So what that reflects is that for this period and the pages leading up to it, for a period of time, he was logging in through a service that essentially goes through a U.S. server. So it's like a VPN. This is a satellite one. But that made it look as though he's logging in from the United States. So even though he was located elsewhere, it would have directed him to the Bittrick's U.S. website as opposed to the international one that was or the global one at that time. And that's why he was prompted to. And then the records reflect that he did, in fact, accept the Bittrick's U.S. terms of service on that date. Now, does this mean that Bittrex transferred his account from Bittrex International to Bittrick's U.S.? Well, no. This had not. I mean, as I just said, this was in U.S.

If you were to, and I mentioned this in the last trial, the, it all was based on the IP address from where you're logging in at that time. Bittrick's International was established in October or so of 2018, international IP addresses that were non-sanctioned countries would be routed to Bittrick's international. And I'll get to that in a minute. But because Mr. Abasi was signing in from what looked to be a U.S. server, it routed him back to Bittrick's U.S., even though he was located outside the U.S. Then if we turn to page 15 of this exhibit, now a few months later he has stopped VPNing or satellite linking in from the US and now he has

is going through a VPN as it says in the right one in the Netherlands so in the top entry now he's routed to the Bitrix International website because of location and prompted to and then does accept the Bitrix International Terms of Service at that time but to your question and nothing, no accounts are moved in terms of physical location, no assets are moved in terms of their wallets. All this is is the system, once there was the split to international, the system is recognizing, based on IP address, where you are essentially representing that you are located

and then directing you to the appropriate website based on that. So all in all, Mr. Abasi accepted three different terms of service, 2015, 2018 and Bittrick's US. Two versions of the Bittrick's US that would have been the 2015 version when he signed up in 17, then the version that was in place when he routed in through the US in early 2019, and then the Bittrick's International in August of 2019 when he VPNed in from the Netherlands. Let's look at it. And am I able to say something? Yes. Good.

Mr. Maria is lying to the court. To the document 92, according to docket 92. According to docket 92, the Lomo coin in 2003, Jovemberg was transferred in the year 2020 and in 2020. It's not fair to him, and I'll give him to the court to Hogan, I'm going to informant and I'm not fair that he would be lying to the court and I can't defend.

Okay. Ms. Habibi, I'm going to rule on that objection. If any of the claimants believe that Mr. Maria's testimony is not truthful, they will have an opportunity to examine Mr. Maria when Ms. Tomasco's examination is concluded. Can you share that with the parties? If any of the people who are who are not to the sobats of the Mariah to the words of Mariah, they have a chance after that she had made of the time of

her, she had to ask them from Maria soar, and that, and the questions of her and in that moment, at that, and at that time, and at that time, and, can't, now, I'm a third one, Matt Cefonim, from the Soviet and Mario, and he etrazzar can I express an objection, because I have an objection to Mr. Maria's statements. Okay.

Ms. Tomasco, would you remind me precisely where we are in the examination? Are you moving to admit a document at this point? I'm moving to admit Exhibit 52, and then we're moving on to Exhibit 54, which is the 2015 Terms of Service. Okay. So, again, parties will have an opportunity to ask Mr. Maria questions at the appropriate time. Can you share that, Madam interpreter? Yes, Your Honor. Anya of those who shuffaicred on,

they can, in the matter of the right, or sobate, to ask, to ask, and say to-a-lawful to talk, and the interests of their own matter of my opinion. I am. I amoebaugh-old-sin-ist. And, I mean, you know, I'm sorry-a-lawful. I'm not Mr. Monson-Zade, I'm not Mr. Abbasi, and the objection I have relates to something else, not what was mentioned. Okay. There's a single question in front of me right now. This is Exhibit 52. The court will admit that exhibit 52. The court will admit that exhibit. Mr. Maria has testified that so that exhibit is admitted and we will move on with the

examination. Ms. Tomasco you can ask your questions. Thank you, Your Honor. Hang on. Ms. Habibi, you can report to the claimants with respect to the court's ruling and then we'll return to Ms. Tamasco, okay? Yeah, sure. Jolay of my, just one for a one majorque has,

Madrake of Pange and 2, that I'm in-roza-me-reau. I would say that just the statute of the law be made sure that Kahneman Thomas Gap, may not allow of his own his law of his own to Exhibit 44. Do you recognize this document? I do. And what is it?

This is the Terms of Service. Data 2015, but this was well as in place during 2017 when each of the claimants signed up for BITS. So each of the claimants when they would have set up their accounts would have had to have checked the box that would have a link to the 2015 Terms of Service at Exhibit 44, correct? That is correct. I move for the admission of Exhibit 44. Any objection to the admission of the Terms of Service? Yes, I have an objection and I mentioned before.

Okay. Let me see, when the matter of the President of 2015, and the issue that Mr. Maria presented was accepting the terms and conditions of service for 2015. In terms of different, the policies and different, and we can't be able to say that we can't believe that have a lot of conditions and conditions

will be able to make sure that the woman Thomas Doe If it's permissible I'd like to ask the with the person speaking to use shorter sentences

so there's time for interpretation and content is not lost You should you have to ask for for every three of you try to max do you can make sure Your words are you can't make it.

If you can't, your words will be from the terms. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Tomascoe, said that the terms and conditions to the carver,

the file of law is made. Mr. Moscoe mentioned that the acceptance of terms and conditions of service are registered and can be seen in the logs. Yes. Yes. But if we call the log-mawad, we don't know what's any type of which we're not

to the logs, we can see that such documentation doesn't exist. Okay, hold on. Hang on, hold on, hold on, please. Hang on, hang on, a couple things. Ms. Habibi, this is Judge Shannon. We have started this examination, and obviously I very much appreciate your participation, largely consistent with our experience from the prior proceeding, where at that point the claimant, Mr. Godder,

his familiarity with English was sufficient that he was able to follow the examination. I think I'm asking for guidance from you if the three gentlemen that are on the screen, if it's your assessment that they can't follow the questions and the answers without interpretation, then we'll proceed with interpretation. And again, I apologize if the parties have not been able to follow the examination. But I was actually just going on the – again, I think all three of these, gentlemen represented themselves with some facility with English in a hearing in front of me last month but again I want parties that are engaged in today's

hearing to understand what's going on so miss Habibi do you believe it would be necessary to translate miss Tomasco's questions and mr. Maria's answers I believe it would be helpful I'm not sure if it's necessary I would leave that to your discretion, Your Honor, and what the claimants themselves feel would be necessary. Okay. Before I ask those parties, I just want to confirm because we don't deal with interpreters all the time I have on occasion. But I would ask Ms. Tomasco, I assume that you have no issue other than delay with having the interpreter interpret your questions and Mr. Maria's answers. but I would like your thoughts before I canvass the claimants themselves.

Hang on, guys. Hang on, hang on. Hold on. It's my understanding and my experience with respect to the prior hearing on December 13th that they understand the English very well. And so I don't think that each question and answer needs to be interpreted. they interjected objections relevant to particular topics when they've come up and so I think that interpreting every single question and answer would be interposed solely for the purposes of delay

while I understand that English is not their first language you know these are very very simple questions it's always easier to understand another language than it is to speak it and so I that is my feeling All right. I would ask, and I'll start with, I'll start, I will ask the claimants, are you able to generally follow Ms. Tomasco's questions and Mr. Maria's answers? Yes, I'm able to file completely. I need for it to be interpreted, please. I'm some of the noquart to be made

and some of the knowledge of but with the of the necessity of the question in the terms of the Ms. Moria and Mrs.

Ms. Thomas. I understand some. I understand some and I, some I don't understand and because of the sensitivity of the discussions, I would understand. like what both Mr. Maria says and what Ms. Mosco says to be interpreted.

That is how we will proceed then. I'm going to ask a couple things. First, Ms. Tomasco, to the extent that you can either keep your questions short or break them so that the interpreter can interpret. And Mr. Maria, same instruction as best as possible. to item the item that is before me no objection has been interposed that document is admitted I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm does it matter to make sure the law I'm gonna do it all right if I'm

okay I have an objection my name has my name is it's just gonna remind him to do one one at the time This one of the suburb of us, if not a bit of a different, I just have an objection to the terms of services that we have an objection in terms and services that we, there needs to be produced a document showing that the terms and services were accepted.

Okay. Okay, I'm going to overrule that objection. Is there's a mora that more, I'll get them, and you can ask Mr. Maria, about that when when you are examining him but miss to Moscow has put this document up I have an objection um I'm going to contribute your statements actually I've ruled miss Tomasco you may proceed thank you in section 4.1 of Exhibit 44 miss Habibi you may yep go ahead thank you and that back to that

Ves 141 in Madrake of 4th. What does this provision provide for? Section 4. I'm sorry. Mr. Maria, you can answer. I'm sorry, I apologize. I didn't give her a chance to translate, but Section 4.1 notes that Betricks may at any time

and in our sole discretion. Ms. Mastka, asked that this band is she said that this novel is Sholeka that Bidg X-Pex, it can in every mahthury and in our decision of our and then to the relevant portion,

impose any other conditions or restrictions upon your use of the services without prior notice. Okay. Any rule of the on the use of your use of our our of our

bedaumannes can't be from you from you Elam could. Does Section 16 also provide for Bitrex's sole discretion to modify or discontinue any part of the services it provides? Or, in Section 11, says that, Jasmine Beatrix, to make make sure that,

can in every time in any the end of service or take it Yes, it's a very broad provision allowing Bitrix in its sole discretion to terminate services to customers at any time. Yes, a very

a great-gazade that to be betricks allows me to In every matter, he can the other use a user to cut back.

Specifically, notes, we may terminate your access to the services and our sole discretion immediately and without prior notice and delete or deactivate

your Bitrix account and all related information and files in such account without liability to you. And then we can We do we need to do we have to do with the services of the services of the other than we'll have to be made,

and this is the amount of the methammed, and we can't do not, or do we do, or do we do. And, like, how many other other than we for us for us have done We know that we have the responsibility for you have to be I have a question.

I have a question. From Mr. Maria. This is not the time that you will ask your questions. You'll have an opportunity in a moment. Let me, Mr. Mosco and Mr. Maria, as we walk through this or other documents, if there are sections that Ms. that the debtor wants, that the debtor wants focused upon,

if they are highlighted, the court will read it. And Ms. Habibi is welcome to translate the highlighted section. That should make this go a little bit further. It's not unusual to either have a witness, read it to the court for the record or to direct the court to read it. I think it would just be easier if we're not doing it twice. So I don't mean to insert myself,

but we're trying to manage the mechanics. Ms. Tomasco, you may proceed. Mr. Maria, can we turn to section 19 of Exhibit 44? Do you see that section? I do. Can you highlight the section any direct, indirect, incidental, and go down to the end of the all caps? I would ask that the interpreter please read or translate

the highlighted section of paragraph 19 the court has it in front of me and I can read it Ms. Tomasca. If we can also highlight the first – I'm just trying to make this more efficient. The indemnified party shall have no liability for also highlight that. Thank you. The other that is the part of the government

doesn't any kind of mustacking or by or by or in or or

or chasarats or for the of god and uh no

and any responsibility of any responsibility or any other than any other than any mis-auliat or in the miscarat or in the

because the carbara not can't from the or that or in that or that the services that you've you have given, more than the public that you

did for the service of our, as the back you brought in the back you brought, the time that was the 12 months that before the time you for you for this responsibility. Anything else? You may proceed. Thank you.

Let's turn to Exhibit 32. Can we look at page 11? I will represent this is the addendum to the proof of claim filed by Mr. Adele Abasi. If you could look at the paragraph beginning with in October 2017. Yes. Mr. Abasi represents to the court. that Bittrix disabled these accounts. Is Mr. Abasi one of the affected individuals

who lost access to his account information and assets due to Bittrex's actions? Is that true or false? Ms. Abbasthi, he said that one of the case that has had been fa-a-should. Are you, Abbas, is it just a case that is the case of his, to hisabish, to his heart of the Tassir, were correct is, or not right?

Yes, his was one of the accounts that was disabled after receiving the OFAC subpoena. Was he able to? Yes, that was one of the, he was abhorred, because we were in fact of the authority of Ophak and, Was Mr. Abasi ultimately able to recover all of his coins during the OFAC license period? Yes.

What's in – Oh, yeah. Yes, Mr. Abasi, can – all the sector of his – – can't put his money to get him in the moment that the majevah – Yes, and what's interesting here is that in the next paragraph of this exhibit, of this exhibit, he states that Bittrick's claim to have a permit. However, this didn't help the claimant because he was still unable to access information and assets despite the permission. In fact, what this is interesting, in the band of Burydine, he

He could not be the Hesabes Sharsesiped by the that the OFAC he has to dozee of OFAQ he does that say a few minutes ago he took advantage of this process submitted the OFAC license transfer form and withdrew all remaining assets in his account

during the license period. And the case that we're going to The fact that we've seen is that in the time of Mochavis Ofak, the whole of the dairaii of that, pithandahs of that, and then took on that time. So the statement beginning in 2020, is that true or false with respect to Mr. Abbasin?

It's false because he withdrew his assets that were in his account during the license period. And I will that in the general that in 2020 is sure, or is this is the truth or not it, haigat not really, because Aar Ya Abbasi canes all of the modudia of its own

in the time Mojavez of Opaq. And I will note that each of the claimants, as we see in the first sentence, say that they reside in Istanbul, Turkey now, Turkey now however as we learned at the outset of this hearing their lawyer noted that they have a difficult time getting representation because they live in Iran and what I'm here we mean here are saying they're in how they're in here in Hong Kong we're in Turkey but in the

at first of this I'm from their wakirishun who they can't to be in their own way and to be able to have taken in Iran I'm in Iran. Thank you. Let's turn to Mr. Arab Poor. If you could look at exhibit, I don't know that we need to admit the proof of claim, Your Honor, but we move to... The proof of claim is of record.

Let's... ...on this madrack and we were the subter of the matter of the statute of the law enforcement, Let's look at Exhibit 58. We're going to the Surrog of Madrake Phaindjahash, Marlott. You could identify that document for the court. Again, this would be the printout of the account

information from Mr. Arupur, from our administrative system. When did this... ...in this... ...in the other day of you tell you to this is... is a thing. This is a print as the fact that we have gotten from the Ayaaport. Do you know when Mr. Arapur opened his account with Beatrix?

I have you know that the Ahrapur he said to him. I believe Mr. Arapur opened his account in January of 2017. I think I'm the Aesapur, hisabble, hisabble, hisapsed with Bichs on January of 2017, in order to open his account in 2017 would mr. Arapur had to have accepted the 2015 terms of service yes anyone in 2017 would have had to toggle the check

mark to indicate the accepted the terms of service to get fast the very first page Yes, yes, in 2017, would, Aya Arapur, should, Mr. Rappur, to receive, to, the,

of the 2015, would beaacquered. Yes, that, everyone who wanted to click on on the

back on the back on the that shows that and the service restanee and let me correct one thing I said I believe Mr. Harapur was June of 2017 not January

I'm a German task I think I'm, I think I'm, Arampur, in June of 2011 2017, the Hesopshunded not in the Shambiae. Let's look at

Exhibit 18, if you wouldn't mind. If you know, we're in Madrake of 18? If you could look at Page 2. The last paragraph. Did Mr. Arab Poor agree with you that he accepted the 2015 terms of service?

Yes, clearly, I'm sorry, translate here. Are you, do you know, would you want-fied with you that in the service-resanian 20-15 are called? Yes. Yes, in this response to the court, he notes that he agreed to the 2015 Terms of Service. In this, in response to the law, in here, he said, I'm in the Chariates of the 2015 was made up to act. Is that the same 2015 terms of service that we just reviewed in Exhibit 44? Yes.

Yes. Let's turn to Mr. Momenzada. Let's turn to Mr. Momenzada. If you could look at Exhibit 67. Madrakeshastash. Which will make sure that we admitted Exhibit 58. Devaeathe 67. That exhibit submitted, you may proceed.

That's afted for the subject for the statute of the office of the document. What is Exhibit 67? Marrake 67. This is the IP log activity for Mr. Momenzada's account. Okay. This is the IP for the Hesadah for Mr. Momenzada is. I move for the admission of it because of it's 67.

All right. I'm going to say, any objection to the admission of 67? Are you a derzae? Yes. I don't have an objection, but I'd like to make comment. I'll have an objection, but I'd like to make comment. You'll have an opportunity to comment,

but not during the examination. You'll forksat for finders that comment but in the time that they're going to their questions, okay. Exhibit 67 is admitted. Thank you, Your Honor. In order, we're just a madrake of rasping. With respect to Mr. Arab Boar, can we look at Exhibit 61, please?

In order of Arab, we can make the Madrake of Shastery, can go to Bates Label 730. 30 these kind of me go and backwards order you're on so label page page 37 at the bottom that face you have you recognize this document I do I'm move for the admission of exhibit 61 your honor it's admitted what did mr. airport asked for at this time I have put in judge she's so here mr. Ararapur attaches an email he received in March relating to the license withdrawal process.

He's a guy of Arabpur, he attached, or he attached to the license form filled out. He attaches the license form filled out. and notes that he was unable to do this prior to March 31st, and this is now occurring in June and July of that year. He is the form of the majeviz, that we're saying that not to know before the 3rd.1 Marche no, in june, this in the hood of months of June and June and June year, and julya, and july. to exhibit 20 if we could turn to page 11 of that a document if you could look at the paragraph that begins in 2020 this is the proof of claim filed by Shariar R R report and in that paragraph you'll note what he states in that document in that

statement is this statement that is highlighted in front of you mr. Maria is that true and correct based on what we've seen in the Zindask tickets I'm a question of that the Arapur forcied both and he said that he said on the fact of his question. Are you in a reality? I suppose it's true, but it's somewhat misleading

because he doesn't note that he actually received notice of the license permit process and tried to do it, but was just too late based on his timing. It can say that it is actually but what is it is not that they're off there are a lot of the information that they can't in a particular in a matter of which was for the majev that was,

and they say they're not that they're they're doing this work Let's look at Exhibit 19, page 4, which is another claim filed by Mr. Arapore. In fact 14, 14th of 4, a case of the other Arabi Purs. If you could look at the statement, since the Chapter 11 petition, you see that statement? The one that's highlighted on the screen now? Yes.

Yes. Has Mr. the first sentence, has Mr. Arapore ever had 10 Bitcoins? Translate that, please. Do you, Mr. Ayes Ahrapur until now, do you know, do now, 10 bitcoin has? Not from my review of his account, and he certainly did not when his account was disabled. What's that? Let's look at them.

I didn't know. I didn't know. I didn't. From the fact that I'm un-faxed, let's look at Exhibit 62. Do you recognize this document? I do.

And what does it show? Those were the assets in Mr. Arapur's account. Are you are you know, is? Yes. These are Daraeis, that in Hesawai, Arapu. How much is the total value as if the petition date

May 8th? 23. The full of the of the date on the 8th of May, it was a little over $8,400 and I think today it's worth a little over 9,000.

A little more, $8,400. $4,400. I think I'm I'm, I'm the result of $9,000. What is the value today of 10 Bitcoin approximately? The price of today, the amount of Bitcoin, what is, I haven't looked at today's price,

but yesterday it was around 43,000 for Bitcoin, so that would be about $430,000 US. I'm not today today was $14,000 was, or $430,000 American-e. Okay, now we can turn to Mr. Momanzana. I apologize. I'm trying to truncate some of this. I missed some steps. Now we're for the Agaid Manin Zadeh. Let's look at exhibits.

Move for the admission of the 2, please. It's admitted. Let's look at Exhibit 67. I think I have to have. I believe we've made this already. I have an explanation for this. I have an explanation for this. Can I offer that now?

No. When did Mr. Momenzda opened his account with the trips? Aral Momenzadee, how should we'll be checks plus again? In January of 2017. If we can turn to page 96 of this. January 2017, 7th of 2009-2ndes. Does that correspond with the first login by Mr. Momenzada? It does.

Do you have to the first Fahmohmedzada logined? Can you describe what happened with Mr. Momenzda's account during the OFACC license period? Can you think that what happened with the Hesab-Mobindzade in the time Mujah. Well, it would have been disabled in 2017 as with the rest of them. From my review of the account,

it doesn't look as though he logged in during the license period. In fact of her, with other than in the time of the 2011, the other than, it was made upheld, and with other than I was doing it, when I moved to do with them to do with, they don't know that they're in the time that the majewez ofque in the jadeghur in the jade. Specifically, if you look at page 3 at the bottom, bottom. There's a big gap in his logins from May 4th, 2019 and then not again until September 19th of 2022.

If you'll see, you know, there's a farceal of 209th from the 4th, 2019, from September 22nd, 2012. Would Mr. Momenzda have gotten the same last email that Mr. Abasi got with the OFAC release form? Are you, Amoenzade, that the email that I'm from the information of OFAC and the Mojavez OVAC and the FACC and form of OFACC each individual who is impacted by the the disabling of accounts because of the OFAC sanctions should have been on on the distribution list with their email that they used as their log on and username?

Every person who, that's the effect of the OPEC was made of their mis-fail-shoulded or not-foward-should beairste a email draft me to that the email that was a part of their own email was. Ms. Tomasco, can I ask whether or not you think you can wrap up Mr. Maria's direct in the next five or ten minutes? Because we will, I have either the, I think, seventh, eighth, or ninth of next week for as much time as we need to conclude this matter. And I'll look for the parties to schedule that.

But as, again, I apologize for not having the balance of the day available. I think, honestly, I have about 15 or 20. but I can try. No, I mean, because we're going to reconvene, so I'm not going to ask you to drop everything. And again, I want the claimants, frankly, to have the benefit of Mr. Maria's full testimony and then the opportunity when we get back together

to examine him. What's the date, Your Honor? So I was going to, again, since we have a number of moving parts, I was going to give you three options, all of which would start. at 10 a.m. And those are the 7th, 8th, or 9th of February. If it's up to me, Your Honor, I choose the 9th.

I have a thing to go to. No, I hear you. Look, I'm going to ask that you confer with the parties. I don't want to have that discussion. If there's a debate about it, then we can get on the phone, and I will set the time. I appreciate, frankly, the significance of this issue to the claimants as well as to the debtor to deal with this issue and to address these claims. So you're on the front burner.

I just don't have the full day available for you today, and I'm traveling tomorrow and Friday. Otherwise, I would simply carry you over. So what I think would make sense is if you think that we're at a decent spot, We would break, reconvene at a time that the parties will advise the court. I would make an observation and I'm not going to poll the parties. Mr. Maria is the plan administrator. Also by training, the record reflects that Mr. Maria is an attorney, but not practicing or appearing as an attorney missed.

Typically, the court would direct that a witness not discuss his testimony during a break or an interval. Here we have a break that may be as long as a week, and the fact of the matter is that Mr. Maria is the client and the plan administrator. I will relieve Mr. Maria of any admonition, and I note that I'm less concerned about that issue, because Mr. Maria's testimony is tracking testimony that the court has already heard from Mr. Maria in another context, not minimizing the significance of it, but I also note that the direct is not concluded. So Mr. Maria is, when we conclude, Mr. Maria will be able to confer with counsel. Counsel is obviously bound by the appropriate rules and understands the game, or that it's not the right word, understands the context. But I think that it would be cumbersome to impose that admonition for the space of a week on Mr. Maria. Madam interpreter, I would ask, I trust that the gentleman that are on the screen were able to largely understand my comments, but I would ask that you translate as follows.

We will have to stop the proceeding now due to my schedule. We have to allan of this case of the case of the other things I have. I have another trial starting in a few minutes. We will re-convene we will reconvene at the end of next week. We'll come here again here again. And at that time, Mr. Maria will finish his testimony and you will be given an opportunity to ask him your questions.

In that, Mr. Maria, shehadate of his own his testimony and you'll forcied from him to ask him to ask him. I will also, at that hearing, hear your either testimony or your arguments to me about your claims and your position about what you're entitled to. And in that moment, the shahadatty of your, and the shahadathe's of your

And the otherby of your will also hear of you and that you and I give me to give you do what you have and why. Okay.

With that, I apologize for not being able to do the entire hearing today and for any inconvenience with trying to finish it next week. But with that, we will conclude today's hearing and we will reconvene shortly. Okay?

Yes. Your Honor, do we have a date for them? The proposed date is the 9th. And it would be at 10 a.m. Eastern time in the United States. And that is the first of the United States. All right. I appreciate your patience, and I will look forward to seeing everyone in a week. We stand in recess. Thank you

P. Thank you