BKEX Exchange Convicted: Futures Trading Deemed Gambling

The People's Court of Pingjiang County, Hunan Province, recently issued multiple criminal judgments related to BKEX Exchange, which have been published on the Judgment Document Network. The judgments primarily involve BKEX employees and agents, with a key finding being that the exchange's futures contract trading was deemed as gambling. The court also convicted BKEX exchange platform agents and employees as accomplices in operating a gambling establishment.

The judgments revealed that in the first half of 2018, Ji Jiaming established Chengdu Dechen Biké Tiānxià Technology Co., Ltd. in Chengdu, Sichuan Province. In June of the same year, the company founded the BKEX exchange platform, focusing on various virtual currency exchange and spot trading businesses. Between July 2019 and January 2022, Ji Jiaming changed the registration information of the BKEX exchange platform company several times until it was deregistered.

In the first half of 2021, Ji Jiaming planned to launch perpetual contract trading on the BKEX platform. Users used USDT as a bet, amplified the betting principal by setting a high leverage, and bet on the rise and fall of BTC, ETH, and other virtual currencies. Through online platforms, they engaged in crowd gambling. Due to a lack of relevant market operation experience, Ji Jiaming reached a cooperation agreement with Lei Le. The two agreed that Lei Le would establish a team in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, responsible for the operation and promotion of the BKEX platform's futures contract trading module. Ji Jiaming and the Chengdu team provided technical and financial support, were responsible for software development and maintenance, and provided funds for salary payments and office space rental. The two parties agreed that 58% of the net profit of the BKEX platform's futures contract trading module would belong to Ji Jiaming and the Chengdu team, while the remaining 42% would belong to Lei Le and the Shenzhen Operations Team.

As the founder was at large, the defendants mainly consisted of agents and employees. The Judgment Document Network listed a total of 8 documents, including 2 employees and 6 agents.