Bitclub Newsletter No. 200

Dear Clients,

In our previous update, we reported on Christopher Scanlon’s pending Motion to Vacate Seizure Warrant concerning property that remains restrained in connection with the BitClub Network proceedings.

As explained, Scanlon’s attorneys filed a further submission on August 27, 2026, asking the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on the motion. The motion had been made returnable on September 8, 2026.

At this time, there has been no further filing or Court decision reflected in the proceedings concerning this request.

For this reason, we would like to clarify what the September 8 return date means and, equally importantly, what it does not mean.

A return date is not necessarily the date of the Court’s decision

In U.S. federal court practice, a motion’s return date generally forms part of the procedural timetable for consideration of the motion.

It should not automatically be understood as a deadline by which the judge must issue a decision.

Depending on the circumstances, the Court may decide a motion on the written submissions, request additional briefing, schedule oral argument if considered necessary, or issue its decision at a later stage.

Accordingly, the absence of a ruling by the return date does not by itself indicate whether the Court intends to grant or deny the motion.

What is the present position regarding the Scanlon motion?

The position therefore remains substantially the same as described in our previous update.

Scanlon is seeking the release of specific property that he claims should no longer remain subject to the seizure warrant following the dismissal of the criminal charges against Matthew Goettsche.

His attorneys have also argued that the Government did not file an opposition within the applicable period and have asked the Court to treat the motion accordingly.

However, those remain arguments advanced on behalf of Scanlon.

Unless and until the Court enters an order, it should not be assumed that the seizure warrant has been vacated or that the property will be released.

Why are we continuing to follow this issue?

For BitClub Network victims, the significance of this dispute extends beyond the particular account claimed by Scanlon.

Following the dismissal of the charges against Goettsche, questions concerning property that was seized during the criminal proceedings may become increasingly important.

Different assets may, however, have different legal histories and may be subject to different claims. A decision concerning one particular asset therefore does not automatically determine the status of other property connected with the BitClub Network proceedings.

Nevertheless, decisions addressing whether previously seized property should remain restrained may provide important information about how the Court approaches these issues following the dismissal of the criminal case.

What does this mean for BitClub Network victims?

At present, no action is required from our clients in relation to the Scanlon motion.

We consider it important to distinguish between an actual development in the proceedings and the passage of a procedural date. For that reason, we do not want to present the September 8 return date itself as a substantive development when the Court has not yet issued a decision.

We will continue to monitor the docket for an order or any further filing concerning the motion.

If the Court issues a decision, we will review not only the outcome of Scanlon’s request, but also whether the reasoning may have broader significance for seized assets and the position of BitClub Network victims.

Thank you for your continued trust.

Kind regards,

Attorney Zoran Miljaković