Who Can Stop You Taking Your Money Out? One Disclosed Gate, Six Closed Exits, and the Clause to Read First

Income Facts

Claim:

That a yield product which says you can withdraw at any time has no one who can stop you.

Scope:

One disclosed repurchase plan and six closed exits, read in their own documents

Share of each request BREIT paid in November 2022, its own notice

approximately 43%

Celsius user liabilities at the bankruptcy filing, alleged

over $4.7 billion

RAD redemption requests outstanding at the freeze, alleged

at least $3 million

Goliath withdrawal processing in the agreements, as the SEC describes them

5 to 7 business days

Finding:

in every exit document I opened, whether or not a regulator later sued over it, someone holds a written power to limit, prorate, delay or suspend withdrawals. In six case files the exit closed. What separates them from the disclosed example is not the existence of a gate but what the complaints say was promised around it. In Goliath's case the promise of exit at any time is admitted in a guilty plea. In RAD, Celsius, Voyager and I Wealth Network it rests on regulators' complaints that no court has tried. In Gemini Earn the freeze was never charged as fraud.

Confidence:

High for what the documents print, because every quotation below comes from a filing, an order, a regulation or an operator's own notice, re-fetched for this autopsy. Low for anything a document does not settle, which includes most of the six matters.

Docket:

17 CFR 270.23c-3

Source:

Investor Bulletin on non-traded REITs

Inconclusive: the documents cannot settle the claim yet. What would change this verdict

Verdict: Inconclusive

The claim

Four questions keep coming back on this docket: who sets the price of the thing you own, who can suspend your exit, where the money paid out comes from, and who verified the track record. This autopsy takes the second one alone: who can stop you taking your money out?

The steelman deserves its full weight, because a limit on withdrawals is ordinary. The SEC staff’s Investor Bulletin on non-traded REITs, dated 31 August 2015, says these REITs “usually offer investors’ opportunities to redeem their shares early but these share redemption programs are typically subject to significant limitations and may be discontinued at the discretion of the REIT without notice.” The staff’s bulletin on interval funds, dated 25 September 2020, is blunter: “You will not be able to sell your fund shares whenever you want.” Both bulletins state that they are the views of SEC staff, not rules of the Commission.

So the claim under examination is narrower than “gates are a scam.” It is the promise that sits on top of a gate. In Celsius’s case the FTC’s complaint quotes the founder telling viewers: “With Celsius, you can withdraw as much as you want as often as you want. No limits.” The question is what the documents show about who could switch a promise like that off.

The evidence

A disclosed gate, in its own words

Start with a product that limited exits under rules it had published, and that none of the documents below accuses of anything. Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust’s Notice to Stockholders of 1 December 2022 says its share repurchase plan “has allowed for repurchases up to 2% of net asset value (‘NAV’) in any month and 5% of NAV in a calendar quarter” since formation, “subject to BREIT’s majority independent Board of Directors’ broad repurchase discretion.”

In October 2022, the notice says, BREIT received requests equal to 2.7% of NAV and its board approved paying 100% of them. In November the requests exceeded both limits, and BREIT “repurchased approximately $1.3 billion in November, equal to its 2% of NAV monthly limit and approximately 43% of each investor’s repurchase request.” It adds that “unfulfilled repurchase requests will not be carried over automatically” and that the board “may make exceptions to, modify or suspend our share repurchase plan.”

How much of each repurchase request BREIT paid, October and November 2022

That is a gate working as written. A holder who asked for all of their money in November 2022 got approximately 43% of the request, under a cap the notice says had been there all along.

Where a regulation sets the rule, it also names who holds the switch. For registered closed-end funds and business development companies making periodic repurchase offers, the SEC’s rule at 17 CFR 270.23c-3 says the company “shall not suspend or postpone a repurchase offer except pursuant to a vote of a majority of the directors, including a majority of the directors who are not interested persons of the company”, only on listed grounds, and that it “shall provide notice to security holders of such suspension or postponement.” Where requests exceed the offer, the same rule says the fund “shall repurchase the shares tendered on a pro rata basis.” The rule covers registered closed-end funds and business development companies. Nothing in the six case files below describes any of the products as one.

Six closed exits, and what each document says

Case file	The exit, on paper	What closed it, per the document	Where the exit claim stands
RAD Diversified REIT	Semi-annual redemption requests, capped, at the board’s discretion (offering circular)	Redemptions frozen on 2 February 2024 (SEC complaint)	Alleged. Untried as to the two individual defendants
Celsius Network	”withdraw your crypto at any time” (website wording quoted by the FTC)	All withdrawals halted on 12 June 2022 (FTC and New York AG complaints)	Alleged. The founder’s guilty plea covers other counts
Voyager Digital	Assets “safe”, processing “as normal” (quoted by the FTC)	All withdrawals halted on 1 July 2022 (FTC complaint)	Alleged. Settled with no admission or denial
Gemini Earn (Genesis)	“Open term”, repayment within three business days (agreement, as the SEC describes it)	Withdrawals refused in November 2022 (SEC complaint)	Charged as a registration case only. Genesis settled; the case against Gemini was dismissed
Goliath Ventures	Withdrawals in 5 to 7 business days, delays of up to 90 or 180 days (agreements, as the SEC describes them)	All payments, including principal, suspended after October 2025 (SEC complaint)	The promise of exit at any time is admitted in a guilty plea
I Wealth Network (“I-Fund”)	No withdrawal for a term of typically three years (what the SEC says investors were told)	Excuses at maturity instead of payment (SEC complaint)	Alleged. Untried

RAD Diversified. The operator’s own preliminary offering circular of March 2023 carries the clause: “Our Board of Directors will consider various factors when deciding whether to modify or suspend our Share Redemption Program.” A holder “may only request that we repurchase up to 25% of their shares semi-annually.” The SEC’s complaint filed 29 July 2026 alleges that “On February 2, 2024, RADD froze redemptions,” that the freeze has not been lifted, and that “there were at least $3 million in redemption requests outstanding” when it happened. It does not allege that freezing broke the circular. It alleges something narrower and sharper about how requests were handled before the freeze: “Preference was given to large investors, investors planning to attend upcoming RADD events and those who repeatedly complained.” The circular’s own rule for an oversubscribed window was pro rata. The full SEC case is in the RAD autopsy, stamped OPEN.

Celsius. The FTC’s complaint of 13 July 2023 alleges that Celsius told customers they could “withdraw your crypto at any time”, and that “on June 12, 2022, just five days after promising consumers that it ‘ha[d] the reserves (and more than enough ETH) to meet obligations,’ Defendants unexpectedly and unilaterally halted all withdrawals from and transfers on the platform.” The New York Attorney General’s complaint gives the run in figures, below. The terms carried their own switch. A redline of Celsius’s terms of use, filed in its bankruptcy case and comparing two versions whose effective dates I could not confirm, keeps unchanged the sentence that Celsius and its partners may face conditions “which could result in the immediate halt of transactions either temporarily or permanently.”

The run on Celsius, in the New York Attorney General's figures

On the founder, precision matters. Alex Mashinsky pleaded guilty on 3 December 2024, in the Department of Justice’s words, “to one count of committing commodities fraud and one count of committing securities fraud”, and on 8 May 2025 he was sentenced to 12 years. That plea is not a finding about the freeze. The freeze and the “withdraw at any time” promise are allegations in the civil complaints. The Celsius companies’ own stipulated order with the FTC admits a little more: the facts on pages 107 to 109 of their bankruptcy disclosure statement. Read by its printed page numbers, that span quotes Mashinsky telling customers that “[a] run on the bank cannot happen at Celsius” and reports the bankruptcy examiner’s view that many of his statements were “inaccurate and misleading.” It does not mention the 12 June 2022 pause. The New York case and what its settlement does and does not contain are in the Celsius autopsy.

Voyager. The FTC’s complaint of 12 October 2023 alleges that “On July 1, 2022, weeks after promising consumers that their ‘assets were safe and we’re processing everything as normal,’ Defendants halted all withdrawals from and transfers on the platform.” The Voyager companies and Stephen Ehrlich each settled by stipulated order. The order against the Voyager companies says they “neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint, except as specifically stated in this Order.”

Gemini Earn. This is the case where the written exit term is the clearest. The SEC’s complaint of 12 January 2023 describes the Gemini Earn agreement as “open term”, says investors “could terminate all, or a portion, of their investment in Gemini Earn at any time with no withdrawal fee”, and says Genesis was “obligated to return the invested crypto assets within three business days.” Then: “In November 2022, Genesis unilaterally announced that it would not allow hundreds of thousands of retail investors to withdraw their crypto assets from Gemini Earn.” The SEC charged only the registration provisions of the Securities Act, Sections 5(a) and 5(c), not fraud. Genesis consented to a judgment without admitting or denying the allegations, and in January 2026 the SEC dismissed its case against Gemini with prejudice, saying its decision took into account the “100 percent in-kind return of Gemini Earn investors’ crypto assets.” By the SEC’s own account, then, this frozen exit ended with the assets returned.

Goliath Ventures. The SEC’s complaint of 11 August 2026 describes agreements under which “investors could withdraw all or part of their investment” within 5 to 7 business days, “subject to limited circumstances in which processing could be delayed up to 90 or 180 days.” It alleges that “after October 2025, Goliath suspended all payments to investors, including the return of principal due to insufficient funds,” and that emails telling investors the company had to “temporarily halt operations” were false. Here the exit promise is not only an allegation. Christopher Delgado’s signed plea agreement says, in its factual basis, “The agreement told investors that they could remove their money at any time,” and describes “false explanations for delayed payments and redemptions.” The Department of Justice says he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. The two regulators’ different figures for Goliath are compared in the Goliath autopsy.

I Wealth Network. The exit here was a term, not a window. The SEC’s complaint of 10 September 2026 says Ernest Boateng “told the Investors that the investment was intended to be a long-term investment (typically three years)” and that it would double “provided the Investors did not withdraw any money during the term.” At maturity, the SEC alleges, he gave “numerous false and shifting explanations”, including telling investors “that the Commission had ‘frozen’ his accounts, knowing that the Commission had not frozen any of Defendants’ accounts.” The matter is untried. The rest of the complaint is in the certificate autopsy, which did not cover the exit.

What the evidence supports, and what it does not

Supported. That a written power to limit, prorate or suspend exits is normal in regulated products. The SEC staff says so in two bulletins, the interval fund rule regulates it, and BREIT paid approximately 43% of each November 2022 request under limits it says applied from the start.

Supported. That in all six case files, as the documents tell it, the exit was closed by the operator and not by a regulator or a court. In five of them the documents also describe reassurances about access, given before the closure or after it: for Celsius and Voyager these are FTC allegations, for RAD and I Wealth Network SEC allegations, and for Goliath the promise of exit at any time is admitted in a plea.

Supported. That the complaints rarely object to the gate as such. They allege promises that, in the regulators’ telling, were false when made, holders treated unequally against a written pro rata rule, and changing excuses after the money stopped.

Not supported: that any of the four untried promises was false. On the exit question, RAD, Celsius, Voyager and I Wealth Network rest on complaints that were never tried. Voyager’s settlements neither admit nor deny the allegations. Mashinsky’s plea covers two counts. It is not an admission about the freeze.

Not supported: that Gemini or Genesis committed fraud. The SEC never charged fraud in that case.

Not supported: that reading the clause would have saved anyone. No document I opened counts how often a gated product turned out to be a fraud, or how often the written terms warned a buyer in time. There is no denominator here and I will not supply one.

Not supported: that BREIT, interval funds or non-traded REITs are safe. The SEC staff calls their limits a risk, and I opened no regulator document about BREIT either way.

Cause of death

What dies here is the idea that “you can withdraw at any time” describes a right the holder controls. Across these documents the exit is a term that someone else administers: a board, a manager, a company that says it may halt transactions.

In the disclosed example that someone is named and bounded. The interval fund rule names the directors who may suspend, the grounds and the notice. BREIT’s notice names its limits and its board’s discretion, and BREIT then paid out under them. In the case files the switch sat with the operators, and the complaints describe reassurances about access that continued up to the closure and, in some of the files, after it.

What would change this verdict

1. Judgments on the merits in RAD and I Wealth Network. Either would turn the exit allegations in those complaints into findings, or remove them.
2. An admission about the freeze in any Celsius or Voyager matter. Voyager’s orders neither admit nor deny the allegations, the pages the Celsius companies admitted do not mention the pause, and the criminal plea covers other conduct.
3. The final circulars and terms in force on the day each exit closed. I read RAD’s preliminary circular of March 2023 and a redline of Celsius’s terms between two versions. The exact text in force on 2 February 2024 and 12 June 2022 could sharpen or soften what the operators had reserved.
4. A dataset with a denominator. A count of gated products, and of how many ended in enforcement, would let this docket say how much the clause predicts. Without one, this stays INCONCLUSIVE.

Frequently asked questions

Is a limit on withdrawals a sign of fraud?

Not by itself. The SEC staff's bulletin on non-traded REITs says redemption programs may be discontinued at the discretion of the REIT without notice, and Blackstone's BREIT paid approximately 43% of each investor's repurchase request in November 2022 under limits its plan had allowed since formation.

Who decides whether an interval fund can suspend a repurchase offer?

The regulation does. Under 17 CFR 270.23c-3 the fund may suspend or postpone only by a vote of a majority of its directors, including a majority of the non-interested directors, only on listed grounds, and it must notify holders.

Did Alex Mashinsky plead guilty to freezing Celsius withdrawals?

No. He pleaded guilty on 3 December 2024 to one count of commodities fraud and one count of securities fraud and was sentenced to 12 years on 8 May 2025. The withdrawal freeze of 12 June 2022 is alleged in the FTC and New York Attorney General complaints.

Which of the six cases includes an admission about the exit promise?

Goliath Ventures. Christopher Delgado's signed plea agreement says the agreement told investors that they could remove their money at any time. The other exit promises in this autopsy rest on regulators' complaints that were never tried.

What should I read before paying into a product that promises easy withdrawals?

The written exit terms: who can change, limit or suspend withdrawals, on what grounds, with what notice, and what happens when requests exceed the cap. Then set any spoken promise of instant access against those terms.

Source docket

1. US Securities and Exchange Commission staff, “Investor Bulletin: Non-traded REITs”, 31 August 2015: https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins-89
2. US Securities and Exchange Commission staff, “Investor Bulletin: Interval Funds”, 25 September 2020: https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/investor-bulletin-interval-funds
3. 17 CFR 270.23c-3, periodic repurchases by closed-end companies (eCFR): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-270/section-270.23c-3
4. Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust, “Notice to Stockholders”, 1 December 2022: https://www.breit.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/67/blackstone-secure/Notice-to-Stockholders-December-1-2022.pdf
5. RAD Diversified REIT, Form 1-A/A, preliminary offering circular dated 24 March 2023: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1721469/000110465923036724/tm2233373d7_partiiandiii.htm
6. SEC v. RAD Diversified REIT, Inc., Mendenhall and Vaughn, No. 8:26-cv-02186 (M.D. Fla.), complaint filed 29 July 2026: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26596.pdf
7. FTC v. Celsius Network Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-06009 (S.D.N.Y.), complaint filed 13 July 2023: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2223137celsiusnetworkcomplaint.pdf
8. People of the State of New York v. Mashinsky, complaint: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/mashinsky_complaint.pdf
9. US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, plea release, 3 December 2024: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/celsius-founder-and-former-ceo-alexander-mashinsky-pleads-guilty-multi-billion-dollar
10. Celsius Terms of Use, redline between version five and version six, Exhibit A to Doc 1961, In re Celsius Network LLC, No. 22-10964 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.): https://cases.stretto.com/public/x191/11749/PLEADINGS/1174902012380000000029.pdf
11. FTC v. Celsius Network Inc. et al., stipulated order against the corporate defendants (proposed order as filed, Doc 3-1): https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2223137celsiusnetworkorder.pdf
12. In re Celsius Network LLC, Debtors’ Disclosure Statement, Doc 2902, filed 27 June 2023: https://cases.stretto.com/public/x191/11749/PLEADINGS/1174906272380000000068.pdf
13. US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, sentencing release, 8 May 2025: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/founder-celsius-sentenced-12-years-fraud-and-market-manipulation
14. FTC v. Voyager Digital, LLC et al., No. 1:23-cv-08960 (S.D.N.Y.), complaint filed 12 October 2023: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/voyager_complaint_filed.pdf
15. Stipulated order against the Voyager corporate defendants: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Voyager-EntryofStipulatedFinalOrderagainstVoyagerDefendants.pdf
16. SEC v. Genesis Global Capital, LLC and Gemini Trust Company, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00287 (S.D.N.Y.), complaint filed 12 January 2023: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2023/comp-pr2023-7.pdf
17. SEC press release 2023-7, 12 January 2023: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-7
18. SEC press release 2024-37, 19 March 2024: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2024-37
19. SEC Litigation Release No. 26465, 23 January 2026: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26465
20. SEC v. Goliath Ventures Inc. and Delgado, No. 6:26-cv-01741 (M.D. Fla.), complaint filed 11 August 2026: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26608.pdf
21. United States v. Delgado, No. 6:26-cr-00158 (M.D. Fla.), plea agreement filed 23 June 2026: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/media/1450386/dl?inline
22. US Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Florida, plea release, 30 June 2026: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/goliath-ventures-ceo-pleads-guilty-cryptocurrency-fraud-scheme-conspiracy
23. SEC v. Boateng et al., No. 1:26-cv-05605 (E.D.N.Y.), complaint filed 10 September 2026: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp-pr2026-86.pdf

Nobody named here was contacted for this autopsy. Quotations keep the documents’ own wording; the dates are the documents’ own, and where a document gives only a month, so does this page.