A crypto exchange founded by the Winklevoss twins moved from Dublin to Malta earlier this year as it wanted a “more friendly regulator” after it was warned it was at risk of running an “illegal business model”, a barrister acting for a former compliance chief has said.
The former head of compliance in Europe for the Gemini crypto exchange, Kian Pettit, has alleged that he was sidelined and left “totally outside the loop” after warning in May 2024 that the company would fall foul of EU crypto trading regulations.
Gemini, founded by American tech investors Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, has said claims by Mr Pettit that he was penalised as a whistleblower and forced out of his job don’t “stack up”. Mr Pettit’s complaints under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against the Irish subsidiary of the global payments group, Gemini Payments Europe Ltd, are denied.
Mr Pettit told a hearing on Tuesday that he took a pay cut to join Gemini because he wanted to take a leadership role in securing its authorisation to trade in the EU. He quit, effective February 28th this year, the tribunal heard.
RM Block
He told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that he authored a document in May 2024 on a new pan-European law, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), which was due to start coming into force from the end of last year.
He explained that a “crucial” part of the rules was “price improvement”: that an exchange processing a crypto trade give the customer the benefit in the event of a price shift between the placing of an order and its execution.
Gemini’s operating model, however, was to execute the trade at a guaranteed price and to retain the improvement in certain circumstances.
“Where the price movement is in favour of the customer, this is where the requirement to deliver price improvement arises under the law,” Mr Pettit said. He said his concern was that it was “very clear here that that would not be the case” under Gemini’s operating model.
“My client’s position is this was unlawful. Bear in mind that the complainant is the head of compliance; this is his stock in trade,” said Cillian McGovern, appearing for Mr Pettit.
In further evidence, Mr Pettit said the initial reaction was that there were issues to address in light of the impending regulations. The senior leadership team in the crypto exchange decided in late May 2024 they would press on with the process of seeking authorisation in Ireland, he said.
He said “everything stopped” within a fortnight and there was “total and utter silence” for another eight weeks in relation to the authorisation process.
Mr Pettit said the next update he got was to be told on a conference call in July 2024 that the founders of the company had decided to seek authorisation from the Maltese regulators instead.
Mr Pettit said he had “zero” input in the decision.
The tribunal heard later that Mr Pettit set out in his letter of resignation that the company sent representatives to a meeting with Maltese officials “unbeknown to the senior EU leadership team” to discuss the “migration of assets” from Dublin.
Mr McGovern said that following Mr Pettit’s report, the complainant suffered a “complete erosion” of his position in the firm.
In a legal submission, Owen Keany, for the crypto exchange, said: “This contention that there’s been an erosion in his role because of a structural change because a licence was applied for in Malta as opposed to Ireland is just a complete nonsense. The claim doesn’t stack up.”
Mr Keany said the sections quoted from Mr Pettit’s report “do not identify any illegality” which he said would be essential to sustain the position that Mr Pettit made a protected disclosure.
“Prior to the institution of these claims on 1 April 2025, there was not even a whisper from the complainant that he was making a protected disclosure or that he felt he had been penalised for making a protected disclosure,” counsel added.
He further submitted that Mr Pettit’s constructive dismissal claim could not succeed on the basis that the complainant had not invoked the company grievance process before resigning.
“You haven’t been invited to go to the contract because if you did, it’d reveal there is nothing to the argument – Mr Pettit’s role remained intact,” he said.
“I would urge you to find there hasn’t been a case to answer and dismiss both [complaints] on that basis,” Mr Keany said.
Mr Brady adjourned the case after saying he would reflect on the position and would write to the parties if he felt the need to reconvene. “If not, I’ll proceed to issue a decision,” he said.
