Friday, May 22, 2026

In US v Soldier Indicted for Polymarket Trade on Maduro Capture CIPA Section 4 Motion Previewed

SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 15 –  The US Army soldier indicted for making $400,000 on Polymarket with inside information on the capture of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela is due in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to his release order in North Carolina found and tweeted by Inner City Press.

  Gannon Ken Van Dyke's profits are put at $409,000. But on April 24 he was found to be "eligible for appointment of counsel at government expense."  5(c)(3) filings on Patreon here.

His financial affidavit, of the type Inner City Press has gotten unsealed for example in the SDNY case of Michael Avenatti, was not included.    By April 28, he had retained Zach Intrater - and Mark Geragos. Inner City Press was there, and live tweeted here

AUSA Finkel: We allege he used information about the Operation to place $33,000 in bet on Polymarket, took in $400,000.

Judge Garnett: Any CIPA litigation? It's an unusual case, the defendant allegedly had the information.
AUSA: We'll tell you in 2 or 3 weeks

On May 13, this: "'I recommend Mr. Matthew W. Mullery, Security Specialist, for the position of Classified Information Security Officer in the above-captioned case. I also recommend Security Specialists Jennifer H. Campbell, Daniel O. Hartenstine, Daniella M. Medel, William S. Noble, Harry J. Rucker, and Winfield S. "Scooter" Slade as alternate Classified Information Security Officers. I certify that the above - named individuals, all of whom are employees of the Litigation Security Group, retain the required security clearances'... ENDORSEMENT: The Court accepts Mr. Bensley's recommendation regarding appropriate CISOs for this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 5/13/2026)."

On May 15 the US Attorney's Office wrote in that it intends to file a CIPA Section 4 motion about discovery "when such a motion is due." That will require a declaration by the (still Acting?) Attorney General; the AUSA notes that it is permitted "in certain circumstances, to withhold the identity of its informants."

More on Substack here

This case is USA v. Van Dkye, 1:26-cr-156 (Garnett)


More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here