Chainalysis has knocked out most of the lawsuit brought by Celsius Network’s litigation administrator, but a U.S. federal judge has refused to dismiss the heart of the case: claims that the blockchain analytics firm helped the collapsed lender market a disputed 3.3 billion USD “audit” of its assets in 2020.
What survived, what died
Judge Margaret Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on Sept. 29 that Count One of the complaint — an aiding-and-abetting claim tied to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Celsius insiders — was sufficiently pleaded and can proceed. At the same time, the court dismissed 15 consumer-protection claims against Chainalysis, twelve of them with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled in their current form. Three others were dismissed without prejudice and can be amended by Oct. 20.
The surviving claim is pursued by the Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium, which acts as litigation administrator for the estate of the collapsed lender. The court found the complaint adequately alleged that Chainalysis knew a December 2020 press release contained false statements about Celsius’s assets under management and actively participated in spreading them — including allegations that the company helped draft the release and approved the word “audit” five times, despite knowing the underlying calculation was neither an audit nor an independent verification.
Garnett was careful to stress the limits of the decision. Made at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the ruling required the court to accept well-pleaded allegations as true, and it does not establish that Chainalysis committed the conduct alleged.
From 1.18 billion USD to 3.3 billion USD
The dispute traces back to how Celsius arrived at the number it promoted in late 2020. According to the complaint summarized in the court’s order, Celsius executive Timothy Cradle used Chainalysis’s Reactor software on Nov. 2, 2020 and initially calculated assets under management of approximately 1.177 billion USD. Celsius insiders then allegedly changed the methodology — including accounting for the purported value of Celsius’s own CEL token holdings — until the figure ballooned to roughly 3.3 billion USD.
On Dec. 9, 2020, Celsius publicly announced the completion of an “audit” confirming exactly 3,318,368,196.40 USD in assets using Chainalysis Reactor, describing the work as the platform’s first third-party asset verification. Chainalysis executive Jason Bonds was quoted in the release saying the company had helped verify the process and accuracy of information connected with net funds collected by Celsius. The litigation administrator alleges that description was materially misleading, and the original release — with its language of “audit,” “independent verification” and “third-party verification” — remains publicly available and central to the surviving claim.
In pari delicto argument fails, for now
Chainalysis had also argued that the estate should be blocked entirely under the doctrine of in pari delicto, which generally prevents a party from recovering damages for wrongdoing it participated in. Because BRIC stands in Celsius’s shoes, the company contended, the claim should die with the lender’s own misconduct. Garnett acknowledged the argument had force — noting Celsius could have received short-term benefits as CEL prices and customer numbers climbed — but said that at this stage the court must accept the complaint’s allegation that insiders acted entirely for their own benefit. Because that factual dispute cannot be resolved from the complaint alone, the judge declined to dismiss Count One on that basis.
One piece of a larger recovery effort
The case is part of a wider scramble for recoveries after Celsius’s 2022 collapse. BRIC filed the Chainalysis suit in March 2025; dismissal briefing concluded that July. In September, the estate separately sued BitMEX entities seeking roughly 6,360 BTC over March 2020 liquidations, coins valued near 495 million USD at filing. Those allegations also remain unproven.
Creditor distributions have continued in parallel. Celsius began a third payout worth 220.6 million USD in August 2025, lifting reported recoveries to 64.9 percent of eligible claims at the time. On the individual side, co-founders Shlomi Daniel Leon and Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein agreed this year to pay a combined 6.5 million USD to settle Federal Trade Commission claims, while former CEO Alex Mashinsky is serving a 12-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to commodities and securities fraud.
Why the case matters beyond Celsius
The ruling is being watched closely across the crypto analytics industry. If the aiding-and-abetting claim survives to discovery, it could test how much exposure firms face when their tools, quotes or branding are attached to marketing claims by clients — a common practice in an industry where third-party “attestations” often substitute for formal audits. Chainalysis disputed the allegations and sought dismissal of the entire case; it can continue contesting liability as the suit moves beyond the pleading stage.
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. For a company whose business is measuring everyone else’s onchain conduct, the irony of a prolonged court examination of its own 2020 press-release involvement is not lost on observers — and the outcome could shape how analytics firms police the difference between verification and marketing.
approving the word audit five times while knowing it wasnt an audit is crazy. thats the whole case right there
five times in one press release and their comms team signed off on every draft. the discovery emails are gonna be brutal
Exactly. The 15 dismissed consumer claims got the headlines, but Count One surviving is what actually costs Chainalysis money.
five times in one press release though. whoever on the chainalysis comms side signed off on that word is having a very bad week
they went from 1.177B on nov 2 to a 3.3B number by changing the methodology. thats not an audit, thats a 2.1 billion rounding error
1.177B to 3.3B by swapping the methodology and stamping audit on it. celsius really said print it
still holding my claim from the estate. every case that survives motion to dismiss is a few more basis points back for creditors
same boat. ill believe the extra basis points when discovery docs actually drop, these estate cases drag for years
oct 20 is the date to watch. estate lawyers rarely bother refiling those three claims unless they believe they can actually cure the pleading defects
Oct 20 refile deadline and the judge keeping Count One alive reads like an invitation to the estate. Chainalysis settlement chatter starts the moment those three amended claims land.
chainalysis put their name on a 3.3B audit that was really just celsius attesting its own data. that claim surviving dismissal is no surprise at all
^ exactly. an analytics firm absolutely knows the difference between an audit and whatever that dec 2020 press release claimed. the we-didnt-know defense was never gonna hold
12 claims gone with prejudice and half the replies will still say chainalysis loses in court. nobody reads past the headline lol
Guilty of exactly that. Read the headline and came straight here. In my defense the headline is worded to make you think the whole case died.
^ this. and garnett flagged its only the motion to dismiss stage, everything is still alleged not proven
Twelve claims gone with prejudice but the fiduciary aiding count is the expensive one. The Dec 2020 email trail in discovery is where this case actually gets decided.
12 claims gone with prejudice but judge garnett kept the core one alive and the estate can refile three more by oct 20. discovery in this case is gonna be spicy