Poloniex operator faces $9.08 million Prime Trust default judgment

A Delaware bankruptcy judge entered a $9,084,253.77 default judgment against Polo Digital Assets Ltd., the company identified in court records as the operator of cryptocurrency exchange Poloniex, in litigation arising from Prime Trust’s collapse.

The order was filed October 15 and became immediately enforceable. It gives the PCT Litigation Trust authority to pursue the judgment plus post-judgment costs. The development matters to Prime Trust creditors because the trust was created to pursue estate claims and distribute recovered assets, but a judgment is not the same as a collection: the order identifies no recovered sum, payment timetable or creditor distribution.

The ruling also has a sharp legal boundary. It applies to Polo because the company failed to answer or otherwise respond by the deadline. It does not decide the trust’s claims against crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun, the other defendant.

What the court actually ordered

Judge J. Kate Stickles granted the litigation trust’s motion under the federal default-judgment rules. The three-page order states that Polo owes $9,084,253.77 and authorizes the trust to take actions needed to enforce it.

Because the judgment followed a default, it was not a verdict after a contested trial. The court treated Polo as having failed to defend the complaint; it did not hear competing evidence from the company before entering the monetary award. Independent reporting published October 16 corroborated the order and identified Polo as the Poloniex operator.

The underlying complaint, filed August 12, 2025, sought to recover transfers that the trust alleged were preferential payments. It says Prime sent $9,083,903.77 to Sun and Polo, or for their benefit, from May 16 through Prime’s August 14, 2023 bankruptcy filing. That is the complaint’s defined 90-day preference window, not a measurement of all business between the parties or a finding reached after trial.

The judgment is $350 greater than the transfer total alleged in the complaint. Neither the three-page order nor the portions of the complaint reviewed for this report explain that difference, so Coinburn is not assigning it to interest, fees or another category.

The order expressly protects Sun’s defense

The judgment says it cannot be treated as a finding, admission or determination of liability or damages against Sun. It cannot be offered as evidence against him, bind him through issue or claim preclusion, or impair his ability to defend the litigation.

The same provision preserves the trust’s ability to pursue its claims, including an argument that Sun is responsible for Polo’s actions. In practical terms, the Polo judgment and the unresolved Sun case now proceed on different tracks.

An official Delaware bankruptcy court page shows that the court denied Sun’s personal-jurisdiction challenge on September 30. That opinion concerned whether the court could hear the claims against him; it did not establish liability on the merits. No trial date or final merits ruling against Sun is established by the sources reviewed here.

Recovery remains unmeasured

The order permits enforcement but does not identify assets available to satisfy the judgment, the jurisdiction in which collection will occur or the amount creditors may ultimately receive. The complaint describes Polo as incorporated and operating in Seychelles, which may add cross-border steps, but the reviewed record does not establish that enforcement there has begun.

The distinction is central for creditors. The litigation trust now has an enforceable U.S. judgment against Polo, while cash recovery and any later distribution remain separate events requiring documentation.

The next verifiable milestones are enforcement filings, a disclosed payment or asset seizure, and further rulings in the case against Sun. Until one occurs, the supported conclusion is narrow: Polo lost by default for $9.08 million, while recovery and Sun’s liability remain unresolved.