SEC Order Directing Additional Briefing for Chester Lu

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Release No. 104996 / March 16, 2026 Admin. Proc. File No. 3-22552 In the Matter of the Application of CHESTER (YIQING) LU ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING On September 18, 2025, Chester (Yiqing) Lu filed a document through the Securities and Exchange Commission’s electronic filing system for administrative proceedings and designated it as an application for review of action by a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”). In his filing, Lu alleges that BTCMAX—a business he describes as a cryptocurrency exchange—froze his cryptocurrency assets and fraudulently extracted money from him. According to Lu, he filed an investor complaint with the Commission and reported BTCMAX’s conduct to the Division of Enforcement’s Office of Distributions and to the FBI. Lu also writes that “there should be a place to hold BTCMAX accountable for their fraudulent and criminal behaviors.” However, applications for review of SRO action are a specific legal process under Section 19(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are limited in scope. If an application falls outside that scope, the Commission lacks authority to proceed and must dismiss the filing. The Commission would benefit from further information about whether Lu’s application is properly within the scope of the Commission’s authority to review it. Under Section 19(d), among other things, the action being reviewed must have been taken by an SRO, which the Exchange Act defines as “any national securities exchange, registered securities association, or registered clearing agency.” For the Commission to determine whether it can review the application, Lu should therefore explain whether BTCMAX is an SRO. 15 U.S.C. § 78s(d). See, e.g., WD Clearing, LLC, Exchange Act Release No. 75868, 2015 WL 5245244, at *3-5 (Sept. 9, 2015) (dismissing FINRA member firm’s application for review for lack of review authority where there existed no basis for review under Section 19(d)). Id. § 78c(a)(26).

If BTCMAX is an SRO, Section 19(d) further limits Commission review to only four types of actions. The SRO must have (1) imposed a final disciplinary sanction on a person associated with an SRO; (2) denied membership or participation in the SRO; (3) barred someone from becoming associated with an SRO member; or (4) prohibited or limited access to services offered by the SRO. Lu should specify which of these actions, if any, BTCMAX took against him. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Lu file a brief by April 6, 2026, addressing the above issues. BTCMAX may file a response by April 20, 2026, and Lu may file a reply by May 4, 2026. If Lu does not respond to this order by April 6, 2026, the Commission may dismiss his application without further notice. We also remind the parties that any document filed with the Commission must be served on all other participants in the proceeding and be accompanied by a certificate of service. For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated authority. Vanessa A. Countryman Secretary 15 U.S.C. § 78s(d)(1)-(2); see also, e.g., Box Holding Gp. LLC, Exchange Act Release No. 100545, 2024 WL 3444274, at *2 (July 17, 2024) (“Exchange Action Section 19(d) authorizes us to review actions taken by an SRO . . . only in specific circumstances.”). See Rule of Practice 180(c), 17 C.F.R. § 201.180(c). See Rule of Practice 150, 17 C.F.R. § 201.150 (generally requiring parties to serve each other with filings); Rule of Practice 151(d), 17 C.F.R. § 201.151(d) (“Papers filed with the Commission . . . shall be accompanied by a certificate stating the name of the person or persons served, the date of the service, the method of service, and the mailing address or email address to which service was made, if not made in person.”).