While they’ve managed to succeed in having Chandler turn over his acquired bitcoin, the FTC’s contempt motion has been denied.

The FTC’s show cause contempt motion stemmed from Chandler initially refusing to turn over his bitcoin, as required by a
previously granted preliminary injunction
.

Chandler had argued the injunction would size bitcoin he’d legitimately obtained, but was
struck down
back in October.

Evidence Chandler attempted to submit (but was denied upon objection by the FTC), suggests he’d purchased around $30,000 in bitcoin.

For some reason Chandler also attempted to submit a “list of friends who lost money”, but that was objected to and denied as well.

Comparatively the FTC submitted four cell phone messages and what appears to be an email conversation, all of which were admitted.

As per a brief November 16th order, following a two-day hearing on the FTC’s contempt motion, the court found ‘
the evidence did not establish that Mr. Chandler intentionally violated the Preliminary Injunction Order
‘.

The important distinction lies in intent.

Obviously Chandler violated the injunction by not turning over his bitcoin. Evidence presented by the FTC however did not convince the court this violation was intentional, i.e. for the purpose of violating the injunction in and of itself.

The ruling wasn’t a complete loss for the FTC though. The court also directed Chandler to provide the FTC with access to his Skype, WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger accounts.

🤖 Quick Answer

What was the outcome of the FTC's contempt motion against Scott Chandler?
The FTC's contempt motion against Chandler was denied despite successfully compelling him to surrender his acquired bitcoin. The motion stemmed from Chandler's initial refusal to comply with a preliminary injunction requiring bitcoin disclosure, though his arguments challenging the injunction's validity were rejected in October.

What evidence did Chandler attempt to present in his defense?
Chandler attempted to submit evidence suggesting he had purchased approximately $30,000 in bitcoin through legitimate means, along with a list of friends who had suffered financial losses. Both submissions were objected to by the FTC and subsequently denied by the court.

🔗 Related Articles

- Charles Scoville fancies himself as the next Mark Cuban
- Arego Life Review: Modulating serotonin = happiness on demand?
- Paparazzi “lead & nickel free” class-action filed in Nth Carolina
- BidForMyMeds threaten legal action over review
- FTC reply to Vemma’s preliminary injunction objections