The United States Securities and Exchange Commission is taking action against Celsius Network, one of the cryptocurrency lending firms that collapsed in 2022.
The securities regulator filed a lawsuit against Celsius’ former CEO, Alex Mashinsky, on July 13, charging the executive and Celsius for raising “billions of dollars” through unregistered and fraudulent offers, as well as selling “crypto asset securities.”
In the complaint, the SEC argued that Mashinsky falsely promised investors a safe investment with its lending service known as the “Earn Interest Program.” Celsius and the executive also fraudulently manipulated the price of Celsius’ own crypto asset security, the Celsius (CEL) token, the SEC wrote.
An excerpt from the SEC’s action against Celsius and Mashinsky. Source: Twitter
The securities regulator specifically alleged that Celsius and Mashinsky were publicly misrepresenting “significant financial events and the financial condition of the company.” According to the regulator, such misrepresentation took place from the very beginning of the CEL initial coin offering in March 2018 until “days before Celsius halted customer withdrawals off its platform.”
The SEC’s lawsuit came shortly after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission reportedly found that Celsius and Mashinsky broke several U.S. regulations before the company’s implosion last year.
On July 6, Bloomberg also reported that attorneys from the CFTC’s enforcement division found that Celsius misled investors and failed to register with the regulator, while Mashinsky broke several U.S. regulations.
The action and the arrest came on the same day with Celsius officially announcing that the firm has initiated voluntary Chapter 11 proceedings. Celsius has $167 million in cash on hand, the firm noted. According to Celsius, the funds will allow it to support “certain operations during the restructuring process.”
“This is the right decision for our community and company,” Mashinsky said in the announcement. He added:
“We have a strong and experienced team in place to lead Celsius through this process. I am confident that when we look back at the history of Celsius, we will see this as a defining moment, where acting with resolve and confidence served the community and strengthened the future of the company.”
Mashinsky was previously sued by New York Attorney General Letitia James in January 2023. The complaint alleged that the Celsius founder and former CEO made numerous “false and misleading statements,” which led to investors losing billions.
Collect this article as an NFT to preserve this moment in history and show your support for independent journalism in the crypto space.
Who knew what about the Afghan data leak? And could anyone in parliament have done more to help scrutinise the government at the time of the superinjunction? Harriet thinks so.
So in this episode, Beth, Ruth, and Harriet talk about the massive breach, the secret court hearings, and the constitutional chaos it’s unleashed.
Plus – the fallout from the latest Labour rebellion. Four MPs have lost the whip – officially for repeated defiance, but unofficially? A government source called it “persistent knobheadery”.
So is Keir Starmer tightening his grip or losing control? And how does this compare to rebellions of Labour past?
Oh and singer Chesney Hawkes gets an unexpected mention.
Responding to claims in the podcast about whether Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle could have scrutinised the government, a Commons spokesperson said: “As has been made clear, Mr Speaker was himself under a superinjunction, and so would have been under severe legal restrictions regarding speaking about this. He would have had no awareness which organisations or individuals were and were not already aware of this matter.
More on Afghanistan
Related Topics:
“The injunction could not constrain proceedings in parliament and between being served with the injunction in September 2023 and the 2024 General Election Mr Speaker granted four UQs on matters relating to Afghan refugees and resettlement schemes.
“Furthermore, as set out in the Justice and Security Act 2013, the Speaker has no powers to refer matters to the Intelligence and Security Committee.”