Mustafa Goklu, aka Michael Goklu v. United States

Whether a dealer’s immediate bilateral exchange of bitcoin and cash with the same customer—acting as counterparty rather than carrying accepted customer value to a separate recipient—constitutes "money transmitting" under 18 U.S.C. § 1960 and the law governing petitioner’s 2018-2019 conduct, where the court of appeals truncated 31 U.S.C. § 5330(d)(2) after "by any means" and treated delivery of either medium back to the customer as transmission to "another location."

Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30 and due process permit a court, after the defense relied in summation on the announced charge, to add that "exchanging Bitcoin for U.S. currency can qualify as a transfer," resolving the central statutory issue before the Government’s rebuttal.