Beugelmans v. OKX Alleges Post-Employment Smear Campaign Violated Separation Agreement
Former GC Says OKX Leadership Falsely Blamed Him for Compliance Failures
Mauricio S. Beugelmans, the former chief legal officer of cryptocurrency exchange OKX, has filed a verified complaint alleging that OKX and its leadership engaged in a coordinated campaign to disparage him in violation of a separation agreement signed in April 2025. Beugelmans, a California resident, led OKX’s global legal and compliance efforts from early 2022 until his resignation in March 2025, a period that included the company’s February 2025 plea agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice over alleged compliance failures. During his tenure, Beugelmans secured critical regulatory licenses for OKX, including the Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) license in Dubai, the Major Payment Institution (MPI) license in Singapore, AUSTRAC registration in Australia, and the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) license in Malta (Compl. ¶53).
Separation Agreement Included Broad Non-Disparagement Provisions
According to the complaint, Beugelmans and OKX executed a confidential separation agreement in April 2025 following his resignation. The agreement included a non-disparagement clause that, in the complaint’s words, required the parties “not to make... any statement... which impugns or attacks or is otherwise defamatory or critical of... the other Party” (Compl. ¶75). Beugelmans alleges that nearly a year after the agreement’s execution, OKX and its agents began publicly blaming him for the company’s past legal troubles, falsely linking his departure to deficiencies in OKX’s compliance program.
The DOJ acknowledged OKX’s “substantial compliance measures” under Beugelmans’ leadership, which were detailed in the plea agreement (Compl. ¶47).
Viral Social Media Post and Law360 Interview Targeted Beugelmans
The complaint details two key incidents in the alleged smear campaign. On April 5, 2026, Star Xu posted a viral social media message that, according to the complaint, accused unnamed “unethical and toxic lawyers” of “sell[ing] their clients out rather than defend[ing] [them] within the bounds of the law.” The complaint quotes Xu’s post verbatim: “‘unethical and toxic lawyers’ who ‘sell their clients out’ rather than ‘defend [them] within the bounds of the law’” (Compl. ¶6). The post was later linked to the DOJ plea agreement and falsely tied to Beugelmans’ departure, the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶89).
On June 24, 2026, Law360 published an interview with Linda Lacewell in which she disparaged Beugelmans’ leadership. The complaint quotes Lacewell as stating that OKX’s legal team under Beugelmans lacked a “strategic plan” and failed to offer a “competitive advantage.” The complaint alleges that these statements were understood by the relevant audience to refer to Beugelmans, despite his name not being mentioned (Compl. ¶124).
The complaint further alleges that Lacewell’s statements in the Law360 interview were made in her official capacity as OKX’s Chief Legal Officer, rendering the company directly liable for her remarks (Compl. ¶129).
Complaint Alleges Economic Motives Behind Disparagement Campaign
The complaint alleges that OKX and its leadership engaged in a coordinated campaign to disparage Beugelmans, falsely attributing historical violations to him. According to the complaint, OKX had direct economic motives to disparage Beugelmans, including the desire to deflect blame for the company’s past compliance failures and to promote OKX’s products by falsely suggesting that its current leadership had rectified the issues (Compl. ¶106, ¶108). The complaint states that the disparagement was an intentional effort to “squelch competition” and falsely communicate that OKX’s problems were Beugelmans’ fault (Compl. ¶111).
The complaint details the roles of key defendants in the alleged conspiracy. Andrew Cuomo, who joined OKX as an advisor in 2023, was named to the company’s Board of Directors on July 20, 2026, according to an OKX press release (Compl. timeline). Cuomo, who resigned as Governor of New York in August 2021 following findings that he “sexually harassed multiple women and engaged in a campaign of pressure and intimidation to silence them” (Compl. ¶56), allegedly urged OKX founder Mingxing “Star” Xu to appoint Linda Lacewell to a senior role at OKX (Compl. ¶59). The complaint alleges that Cuomo and Haider Rafique, OKX’s former Chief Marketing Officer, conspired to sideline Beugelmans in order to consolidate power within the company (Compl. ¶58, ¶70).
Beugelmans allegedly resigned due to a “reduction in authority, duties and responsibilities” (Compl. ¶72). The complaint contends that Cuomo, Rafique, Lacewell, and others marginalized him to pave the way for Lacewell’s ascension. Lacewell, who served as Superintendent of Financial Services for New York State and Chief of Staff to Andrew Cuomo, resigned from her state position in 2021 following reports of her role in underreporting COVID-related nursing home deaths in New York State by some 50%. The complaint quotes a report stating that Lacewell sought to “underreport the number of COVID-related deaths in nursing homes in New York State by some 50%” (Compl. ¶15). Lacewell was also involved in efforts to silence and discredit Cuomo’s accusers, including exploring the sharing of an accuser’s personnel file “for the purpose of rebutting what [she] said were [the accuser’s] false or misleading statements” (Compl. ¶62). The complaint alleges that Lacewell’s disparagement of Beugelmans was intended to entrench herself at OKX and retaliate for his prior refusal to hire her (Compl. ¶138).
Legal Claims Center on Breach of Contract, False Advertising, Defamation, and Tortious Interference
The complaint asserts four causes of action: breach of contract, violation of the Lanham Act, defamation per se, and tortious interference with contract. The breach of contract claim alleges that OKX violated the non-disparagement provisions of the separation agreement through public statements by Xu and Lacewell (Compl. ¶120). The complaint states that Beugelmans performed all obligations under the agreement, while OKX breached the non-disparagement provision through statements by Xu and Lacewell (Compl. ¶119, ¶120).
The complaint contends that the defendants engaged in false advertising and commercial disparagement by publishing false statements of fact about Beugelmans, including Xu’s social media post and Lacewell’s Law360 interview (Compl. ¶141). The complaint alleges that these statements were intended to deceive audiences regarding OKX’s operations and Beugelmans’ professional value, influencing the commercial decisions of clients, investors, and partners (Compl. ¶127, ¶128).
The tortious interference with contract claim is directed at Lacewell, alleging that she knew of the separation agreement and its non-disparagement provision but intentionally disrupted OKX’s performance of it (Compl. ¶135, ¶136). The complaint states that Lacewell’s actions were designed to entrench her position at OKX and retaliate against Beugelmans.
The defamation per se claim alleges that the statements made by OKX and Lacewell exposed Beugelmans to hatred, contempt, or ridicule and injured his professional reputation. The complaint cites specific statements, including Xu’s social media post and Lacewell’s Law360 interview, as defamatory per se, arguing that they “exposes Mr. Beugelmans to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, and/or has a tendency to injure him in his occupation” (Compl. ¶144). The complaint notes that the statements falsely linked Beugelmans’ departure to deficiencies in OKX’s compliance program, despite his remediation efforts being cited favorably in the DOJ plea agreement (Compl. ¶143).
The complaint seeks emergency and interim relief, including a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo and prevent further irreparable harm to Beugelmans’ business and reputation. The complaint argues that injury to reputation “is not easily measured or fully compensable in damages” and is “often held to be irreparable,” quoting legal precedent (Compl. ¶103). It further asserts that the defendants’ conduct has jeopardized Beugelmans’ ability to secure investment for his new venture, constituting irreparable harm (Compl. ¶105). The complaint also seeks monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, with further relief to be pursued in a companion JAMS arbitration. Beugelmans sent a cease-and-desist letter to OKX on April 17, 2026, but the defendants refused to halt their attacks and instead amplified them (Compl. ¶113).
The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.
David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.
From the Complaint Public Court Record
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFIED COMPLAINT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION MAURICIO S. BEUGELMANS, a resident of California, Plaintiff, v. OKX INC., d/b/a “OKX,” f/k/a OKCOIN USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and LINDA LACEWELL, a resident of California, Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR EMERGENCY AND INTERIM RELIEF IN AID OF PENDING JAMS ARBITRATION RE: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (2) VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT; AND (4) DEFAMATION PER SE J. Noah Hagey, Esq. (SBN: 262331) hagey@braunhagey.com Doug Tilley, Esq. (SBN: 265997) tilley@braunhagey.com J. Tobias Rowe, Esq. (SBN: 305596) rowe@braunhagey.com Yekaterina Kushnir, Esq. (SBN: 350843) kushnir@braunhagey.com BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP 747 Front Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 599-0210 Attorneys for Plaintiff Mauricio S. Beugelmans
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT By and for his Complaint against Defendants OKX Inc. (“OKX”) and Linda Lacewell (“ Lacewell” and, together with OKX, “Defendants”), Plaintiff Mauricio S. Beugelmans (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Beugelmans”) alleges as follows. 1 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS 1. Plaintiff Mauricio S. Beugelmans, a nearly thirty-year veteran of the financial services industry, reluctantly brings this suit for injunctive and other relief to remedy the ongoing false attacks leveled against him by his former employer, Defendant OKX, and its agents. 2. Mr. Beugelmans served as in-house legal counsel and then as Chief Legal Officer of OKX, a leading global cryptocurrency exchange, from August 2021 to March 2025. He successfully led OKX’s legal and compliance efforts, both be
Questions about this topic: david@newmanbrunk.com