{"id":118726,"date":"2021-09-09T20:25:00","date_gmt":"2021-09-09T12:25:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.chinapulse.com\/?p=324898"},"modified":"2021-09-09T20:25:00","modified_gmt":"2021-09-09T12:25:00","slug":"bitmex-racketeering-complaint-dismissed-over-lengthy-copy-and-paste-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/2021\/09\/09\/bitmex-racketeering-complaint-dismissed-over-lengthy-copy-and-paste-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"BitMEX racketeering complaint dismissed over lengthy \u2018copy and paste\u2019 claims"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A U.S. District Judge has dismissed amended racketeering allegations brought by traders against the parent company of derivatives exchange BitMEX, A U.S. District Judge has dismissed amended racketeering allegations brought by traders against the parent company of derivatives exchange BitMEX, HDR Global trading, noting that many of the plaintiff\u2019s accusations had been copy and pasted from a different lawsuit filed against the platform.&#8230;<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A U.S. District Judge has dismissed amended racketeering allegations brought by traders against the parent company of derivatives exchange BitMEX, A U.S. District Judge has dismissed amended racketeering allegations brought by traders against the paren&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":250,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[639,213,1527,785,194],"tags":[5567,10390,7705,10333,6823],"class_list":["post-118726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-california","category-china-news","category-currency","category-new-york","category-news-chinese-law","tag-bitcoin","tag-bitmex","tag-blockchain","tag-crypto","tag-fintech"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118726","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/250"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118726"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118726\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":118727,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118726\/revisions\/118727"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}