The High Court has ordered four defendants to disclose documents concerning alleged wider fraudulent binary-options trading, after finding those records could be relevant to one investor’s claim. The ruling concerned pre-trial discovery; it did not determine whether the plaintiff or other traders had been defrauded.
William Thomas Powers claims he paid USD 130,072 in premiums through the Glenridge Capital online platform and lost the full amount. He alleges that the trading was part of a fraud, that two defendants owned or operated platforms including Glenridge Capital, and that the others helped operate or facilitate the scheme. The defendants deny the allegations in general terms. These remain claims to be proved at trial.
The plaintiff sought documents about other binary-options platforms and traders, communications among defendants, trading software and systems, and contacts with regulators. The second to fifth defendants opposed broader disclosure, arguing that the requests went beyond the plaintiff’s own transactions and amounted to a search for material to discredit them. The first defendant had reached an agreement with the plaintiff on discovery, and the judge dealt with the contested application against the remaining defendants.
Mr Justice Tony Hunt found that the pleadings and particulars described the alleged broader fraud with sufficient precision in the circumstances, given the plaintiff’s limited access to information about the alleged conduct. He said evidence about similar transactions could help show the context of the plaintiff’s own dealings. Whether such evidence is actually relevant and probative will be assessed at trial.
The judge ordered the second to fifth defendants to discover documents in their possession, power or procurement relating to binary-trading operations associated with them, including Glenridge Capital, UKTVM and BeeOptions, during the period from 20 May 2014 to 13 July 2017. The order also covers specified communications with the first defendant, relevant computer software and hardware, and notices, allegations, notifications or proceedings from financial regulators in any jurisdiction.
The court did not make findings that the alleged wider scheme existed or that the defendants committed fraud. The plaintiff’s costs of the discovery motion against the second to fifth defendants were ordered to be costs in the cause; those defendants are to bear their own costs. The judge said the parties could provide written submissions if they disagreed with the proposed orders or their precise terms.