Court Denies Juan Carlos Reynoso’s Motion to Stay Bitcoin Seizure Ruling
On Monday, April 14, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied Juan Carlos Reynoso’s motion to stay proceedings pending an appeal regarding a civil contempt ruling. The motion was submitted in response to an earlier court decision holding Reynoso in contempt for failing to comply with a seizure warrant.
The case stems from a warrant issued on January 31, 2025, by Magistrate Judge Héctor Ramos-Vega, which authorized the seizure of 119.65 bitcoins, valued at approximately $12.6 million, from Reynoso. The warrant mandated that these assets be transferred to a government-controlled account within 24 hours. However, following notification of the warrant, Reynoso transferred the bitcoins to various accounts, leading to the contempt ruling.
In the ruling, the court stated that Reynoso’s actions constituted a violation of the seizure order. The court imposed a daily fine of $10,000 for each day Reynoso remained in contempt, resulting in a cumulative fine of $410,000 as of April 14, 2025. The court emphasized that the sanctions were intended to compel compliance with the law and uphold the authority of the judiciary.
Reynoso filed the motion to stay the proceedings on March 24, 2025, shortly before submitting an interlocutory notice of appeal on April 2, 2025. The United States government opposed Reynoso’s motion, arguing that he had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his appeal, nor had he shown that he would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted.
The court’s opinion detailed the legal standards governing requests for a stay pending appeal, noting that such requests are not automatically granted. The court analyzed four key factors in its decision: the likelihood of success on the merits, the potential for irreparable harm, the impact on other parties, and the public interest.
Ultimately, the court found that Reynoso had not made a strong case for success on appeal, citing the lack of jurisdiction over civil contempt orders under existing legal precedents. The court pointed out that appeals in civil contempt cases are typically dismissed as interlocutory and non-final, making it unlikely that Reynoso’s appeal would succeed.
Furthermore, the court concluded that Reynoso’s claims of irreparable harm were unfounded, as the financial sanctions imposed were a direct result of his own actions in failing to comply with the court’s order. It noted that the harm he claimed was self-inflicted and would cease once he complied with the seizure warrant.
In its ruling, the court also highlighted the importance of maintaining the rule of law and the necessity of upholding court orders. The decision underscored the judiciary’s role in enforcing compliance with legal directives, particularly in cases involving significant financial assets.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
