tags.
Let's translate carefully:
First paragraph: "The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission filed separate actions against Goliath Ventures and its CEO, Christopher Alexander Delgado, over an alleged crypto Ponzi scheme that raised hundreds of millions of dollars. The complaints landed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida on the same day, roughly two months after Delgado pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the case."
Translation: "Commodity Futures Trading Commission og Securities and Exchange Commission anlagde separate sager mod Goliath Ventures og dets administrerende direktør, Christopher Alexander Delgado, vedrørende en påstået krypto-Ponzi-ordning, der indbragte hundredvis af millioner af dollars. Klagerne blev indgivet til US District Court for Middle District of Florida samme dag, cirka to måneder efter at Delgado erkendte sig skyldig i strafferetlige anklager i sagen."
We keep proper nouns: CFTC, SEC, Goliath Ventures, Christopher Alexander Delgado, US District Court for the Middle District of Florida. But we can translate "Commodity Futures Trading Commission" and "Securities and Exchange Commission" to Danish? Usually they are kept in English. But the user said "Keep proper nouns (names, company names) in original form" so we keep them as is. However, we can write "CFTC" and "SEC" as abbreviations. The original says "Commodity Futures Trading Commission" and "Securities and Exchange Commission" - we can keep them in English or translate? Since it's a proper noun, we keep. But we can also say "den amerikanske Commodity Futures Trading Commission" but better to keep as is. Let's keep as "Commodity Futures Trading Commission" and "Securities and Exchange Commission" but in Danish we might write "CFTC" and "SEC" for brevity. The original uses full names first, then abbreviations later. We'll do similar.
We'll write: "Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) og Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) anlagde separate sager..." but the original doesn't have abbreviations in first mention. We'll just keep full names.
But to be natural, we can say "De to amerikanske tilsynsmyndigheder CFTC og SEC" but better to follow original.
Let's translate paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraph 1: "Commodity Futures Trading Commission og Securities and Exchange Commission indgav separate søgsmål mod Goliath Ventures og dets administrerende direktør, Christopher Alexander Delgado, for en påstået krypto-Ponzi-ordning, der indbragte hundredvis af millioner af dollars. Klagerne blev indgivet til den føderale domstol i Florida (Middle District) samme dag, cirka to måneder efter at Delgado erkendte sig skyldig i strafferetlige anklager i sagen."
But we need to keep "US District Court for the Middle District of Florida" - we can translate "US District Court" as "den føderale distriktsdomstol" but better to keep the name. Since it's a proper noun, we can keep "US District Court for the Middle District of Florida" in English. But to be natural, we might write "den amerikanske distriktsdomstol for Middle District of Florida". I'll keep it as is.
Let's do: "Klagerne blev indgivet til US District Court for Middle District of Florida samme dag, cirka to måneder efter at Delgado erkendte sig skyldig i strafferetlige anklager i sagen."
We'll use "indgav" instead of "anlagde" - both fine.
Paragraph 2:
The alleged scheme
->
Den påståede ordning
or "Det påståede svindelnummer"? But "scheme" here is Ponzi scheme, so "Ponzi-ordning" is fine. We'll translate "The alleged scheme" as "Den påståede Ponzi-ordning" or simply "Den påståede ordning". But to be clear, we'll use "Den påståede Ponzi-ordning" but the original just says "The alleged scheme" - we can translate as "Den påståede ordning" but since it's about the scheme, we can say "Den påståede Ponzi-ordning" to be explicit. However, the original uses "scheme" in the title and here. We'll use "Den påståede Ponzi-ordning" for clarity.
But the heading is "The alleged scheme" - we can translate as "Den påståede Ponzi-ordning" or "Den påståede svindelordning". I'll use "Den påståede Ponzi-ordning" because it's specific.
Now content: "Regulators say Goliath promised investors monthly returns of 3% to 10% from fees, plus return of principal, by claiming to trade crypto assets and run liquidity pools. The CFTC counts about 1,600 customers who put in at least $397 million. The SEC's number is higher: around $425 million from more than 1,300 investors."
Translation: "Tilsynsmyndighederne siger, at Goliath lovede investorer månedlige afkast på 3% til 10% fra gebyrer, plus tilbagebetaling af hovedstolen, ved at hævde at handle med kryptoaktiver og drive likviditetspuljer. CFTC tæller omkring 1.600 kunder, der indskød mindst 397 millioner dollars. SEC's tal er højere: omkring 425 millioner dollars fra mere end 1.300 investorer."
We keep numbers and percentages.
Next: "But the money never went into any liquidity pool. Instead, new investor funds were used to pay earlier investors — the classic Ponzi structure. Account balances and performance figures were fabricated to make the operation look profitable."
Translation: "Men pengene gik aldrig ind i nogen likviditetspulje. I stedet blev nye investorers midler brugt til at betale tidligere investorer – den klassiske Ponzi-struktur. Kontosaldoer og resultattal blev fabrikeret for at få driften til at se profitabel ud."
Next paragraph:
Where the money went
->
Hvor pengene gik hen
or "Hvor pengene endte" - we'll use "Hvor pengene gik hen".
Content: "Delgado personally took at least $51 million, spending it on homes, luxury vehicles, a yacht, and travel. The company also hired sales agents and paid them commissions out of investor funds. None of that is disputed in the filings."
Translation: "Delgado tog personligt mindst 51 millioner dollars og brugte dem på huse, luksusbiler, en yacht og rejser. Virksomheden hyrede også salgsagenter og betalte dem provisioner fra investorernes midler. Intet af dette er bestridt i klagerne."
Next:
The collapse
->
Kollapset
or "Sammenbruddet" - we'll use "Sammenbruddet".
Content: "By November 2025, Goliath could no longer bring in new money fast enough to keep up with redemption requests. The firm stopped distributions, and the whole thing fell apart. The scheme had run from at least January 2023 through January 2026, according to the article."
Translation: "I november 2025 kunne Goliath ikke længere tiltrække nye penge hurtigt nok til at følge med indløsningsanmodninger. Virksomheden stoppede udbetalingerne, og det hele faldt fra hinanden. Ordningen havde kørt fra mindst januar 2023 til januar 2026, ifølge artiklen."
But the original says "according to the article" - that is from the original article? Actually the text says "according to the article" - but that's part of the content. We should translate that. But it might be a meta reference? It says "according to the article" - so
