- Event
- First reported
- Last checked
- · reviewed
About this date
The filing date of the complaint in which the argument is made.
Summary
The complaint argues that the chats show leadership 'explicitly admitted the platform was gambling' and designed it for addictive engagement (¶¶ 386–392). Those are the plaintiffs' characterisations. The court later rejected the pleaded gambling predicates under New York law.
What the sources support
The complaint's own text, ¶¶ 386–392, read next to the court's decision.
- That plaintiffs make this argument, in these words, in Document 129.
What remains unresolved
- Whether the argument is correct. The surviving RICO claims rest on other predicates (wire fraud, § 1960), and no fact-finder has ruled on them.
Limits of this receipt
- A complaint is advocacy. Read it with the decision (R-A05).
The screenshot
Figure 53: message labelled “Alon”
Figure 53 as embedded on PDF page 104 of the second amended complaint.
- Source
- S01, PDF p. 104, fig. 53 storage.courtlistener.com
- Dated
- 27 April 2024 (figure caption)
Edits & limits
What UNREPOST changed:
- Provenance strip added below the image. The figure itself is unaltered.
Limits:
- This is a plaintiffs' exhibit in a court filing. UNREPOST has not authenticated the underlying chat or checked that it is complete.
- Labels such as “Alon” or “out” are on-screen names. The complaint maps them to people.
All images: image archive.
Identifiers
- PDF pages
- 104–107 storage.courtlistener.com
- Complaint ¶
- 386–392
Related judicial decision
Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss:
At this stage a court assumes the complaint's factual allegations are true and asks only whether they state a legal claim. Some RICO claims passed that test and continue. Many other claims did not. The ruling does not decide what actually happened, and the court said that 12(b)(6) dismissals were with prejudice.
- Allowed to proceed Counts I–II: substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d)): Carnahan and Okafor v. Baton Corporation Ltd., Alon Cohen, Dylan Kerler, Noah Tweedale.
- Dismissed All claims by Diego Aguilar: Aguilar v. every moving defendant.
- Dismissed All claims against the Solana defendants: Solana Labs, Solana Foundation, Yakovenko, Gokal, Albert, Federa, Liu.
- Predicate rejected Gambling predicates (18 U.S.C. § 1955; N.Y. Penal Law §§ 225.05, 225.10): All moving defendants.
Sources
- A complaint contains one side's allegations. Its paragraphs and captions are the plaintiffs' interpretation.
- The screenshots appear in the filing as exhibits chosen by plaintiffs. UNREPOST has not authenticated the original Telegram export or checked that the excerpts are complete.
- The complaint says the chats came from whistleblower disclosures. The opinion (S02) says plaintiffs obtained nearly 5,000 internal chat messages. UNREPOST holds neither set.
- This decides motions to dismiss. It asks whether allegations, assumed true, state a claim. It is not a finding that any allegation was proven.
- UNREPOST could not load the CourtListener docket (HTTP 403 on 27 October 2026), so filings after 31 August 2026 have not been checked.
- This copy comes from plaintiffs' counsel's website. It matches the case caption and docket references, but we did not compare it with the PACER original.
Responses, rebuttals & corrections
No response from the people or companies discussed was located as of the cutoff. That does not mean none exists. Send one.
Related receipts
Revision history
| Revision | Date | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Added the Figure 53 image from the filing. Release 2026.10.28-r2. | |
| 1 | First publication in release 2026.10.28-r1. |