The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has raided multiple locations across the country, suspected of running illegal peer-to-peer crypto trading operations.

 

The raid, conducted by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, the country’s regulatory watchdog, in collaboration with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the South West Regional Organized Crime Unit (SWROCU), targeted eight locations suspected of facilitating illegal peer-to-peer crypto trading.

 

 

According to the FCA, cease and desist letters were issued to the platforms, ordering a halt to the illegal trading activity, and evidence supporting their suspicions and ongoing criminal investigations was gathered on-site during the raid.

 

Peer-to-peer (P2P) trading, which involves the buying and selling of crypto assets directly between individuals without the use of a centralized exchange, is illegal in the UK, as there are currently no FCA-registered P2P trading platforms in the country.

 

According to Steve Smart, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, “Unregistered peer-to-peer crypto traders operating in the UK are doing so illegally and pose a financial crime risk. We will use our powers and work with partners to disrupt them.”

 

He added, “Consumers should protect themselves by only dealing with firms registered with the FCA and by remembering that crypto remains a high-risk investment.”

 

UK Takes Tough Stance on Illegal Crypto Operations

The UK authorities, in collaboration with law enforcement agencies, have intensified efforts over the past year to combat illegal cryptocurrency operations, cracking down on illicit crypto entities and their operators.

 

Earlier this month, the National Crime Agency (NCA), working with the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, launched Operation Atlantic, a crackdown targeting crypto phishing scammers. The operation led to the seizure of more than $12 million in suspected criminal proceeds, involving victims across the UK, the US, and Canada.

 

In February this year, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), in collaboration with the Metropolitan Police Service, seized more than £1 billion in cryptocurrencies from two individuals suspected of running an illegal cryptocurrency exchange. This follows legal action taken by the FCA approximately a year earlier against the cryptocurrency exchange HTX, when the regulator filed a civil lawsuit against the exchange over its unlawful financial promotions in the country.

 

Most recently, the FCA said in an X post that it is cracking down on influencers promoting illegal financial products that put consumers’ money at risk.

 

 

 

More than two years after FTX collapsed and reshaped the crypto industry, Sam Bankman-Fried is still fighting.

 

The former FTX CEO, now serving a 25 year federal prison sentence, has formally moved for a new trial in Manhattan federal court. The filing argues that key evidence was excluded, important testimony never reached the jury, and that the original proceedings did not present the full picture of what was happening inside the exchange before its implosion.

 

It is a long shot. But it keeps one of crypto’s biggest scandals squarely in the headlines.

 

 

A Quick Reset: How We Got Here

FTX was once valued at $32 billion and marketed itself as the responsible face of crypto trading. Bankman-Fried cultivated relationships in Washington, testified before Congress, and presented himself as a regulator-friendly industry leader.

 

That narrative unraveled in November 2022.

 

After a liquidity crunch exposed a multibillion-dollar hole in FTX’s balance sheet, the exchange halted withdrawals and filed for bankruptcy. Prosecutors later alleged that customer deposits were secretly routed to Alameda Research, Bankman-Fried’s trading firm, where the funds were used for speculative bets, venture investments, loans to executives, and political donations.

 

The case moved quickly. By late 2023, a jury found Bankman-Fried guilty on seven counts including wire fraud, securities fraud, and conspiracy. Several former executives, including Caroline Ellison and Nishad Singh, testified for the government. In 2024, Judge Lewis Kaplan sentenced him to 25 years in prison.

 

It was one of the most significant criminal convictions in crypto’s short history.

 

 

The Argument for a New Trial

Bankman-Fried’s latest filing hinges on a legal mechanism that allows courts to grant a new trial if newly discovered evidence could materially affect the verdict, or if there were serious procedural errors.

 

His motion makes a few central claims.

 

First, that certain testimony from former FTX and Alameda insiders was either excluded or not fully presented to the jury. According to the filing, that testimony could challenge the government’s portrayal of FTX as hopelessly insolvent and operating as a straightforward fraud.

 

Second, the defense argues that FTX’s collapse was more akin to a bank run than an inevitable implosion. In this telling, the exchange had assets and would have recovered if not for the sudden withdrawal panic that followed public reporting about its balance sheet. That argument goes directly to intent, which was central to the prosecution’s case.

 

Third, the motion questions the credibility of cooperating witnesses. Bankman-Fried claims some testimony evolved under government pressure and suggests that early statements made by insiders painted a more ambiguous picture of events than what jurors ultimately heard.

 

The filing also calls for Judge Kaplan to step aside from reviewing the request, alleging bias in evidentiary rulings during trial.

 

None of this is easy to prove. Courts rarely grant new trials once a conviction has been secured and upheld through sentencing. The legal threshold is high, particularly in complex financial cases where juries have already weighed extensive testimony.

 

 

The Broader Legal Strategy

The new trial motion is separate from Bankman-Fried’s ongoing appeal. That appeal focuses on whether the trial court made reversible legal errors, including limiting certain lines of defense.

 

Appeals courts typically give trial judges considerable leeway in managing evidence and courtroom procedure. Overturning a conviction requires demonstrating more than disagreement. It requires showing that errors materially affected the outcome.

 

For now, the new filing appears to be part of a layered strategy. Preserve every argument. Challenge every ruling. Keep procedural options open.

 

 

The Bottom Line

FTX’s collapse triggered one of the most severe credibility crises crypto has faced. Billions in customer assets were trapped. Venture capital firms wrote down massive stakes. Regulators in the U.S. and abroad accelerated enforcement and oversight efforts.

 

Even as the industry shifts toward ETF approvals, institutional adoption, and regulatory frameworks, the FTX saga remains a reference point. It is cited in congressional hearings, enforcement actions, and investor debates about custodial risk.

 

Bankman-Fried’s continued legal maneuvers keep the story alive, even if the odds of a successful retrial remain slim.

 

For many in crypto, the question is less about whether he gets a second trial and more about what the case ultimately represents. Was FTX an isolated failure of governance and internal controls, or proof that parts of the industry scaled too quickly without guardrails?

 

The courts will decide the narrow legal questions. The market, as always, is deciding the broader narrative in real time.

 

For now, one of crypto’s most infamous founders is still arguing that the story jurors heard was incomplete. Whether a judge agrees is another matter entirely.