Connect with us

Published

on

MPs who have been arrested on suspicion of a serious offence face being barred from parliament under new plans that were approved in a vote this evening.

It comes despite the government putting forward a motion that recommended MPs only face a ban if they are charged with a violent or sexual offence – a higher bar.

MPs voted to reverse moves to water down the measures on “risk-based exclusions” to ensure members can be excluded from the parliamentary estate at the point of arrest for serious sexual or violent offences.

That was the original recommendation put forward by the House of Commons Commission – but it was later revised by the government to raise the threshold for a potential ban to the point of charge.

In a surprise move, MPs tonight voted 170 to 169, a majority of one, in favour of amendment by Lib Dem MP Wendy Chamberlain and Labour MP Jess Phillips to reinstate the original intention of the policy.

The division list showed eight Conservative MPs voted in favour of the opposition amendment, including safeguarding minister Laura Farris, former prime minister Theresa May and backbench MP Theresa Villiers.

Ms Villiers received a suspension from the Commons for one day in 2021 after she and several other Conservative MPs breached the code of conduct by trying to influence a judge in the trial of former MP Charlie Elphicke, who was convicted in 2020 of sexually assaulting two women and jailed for two years.

More on Westminster Harassment

Tonight’s vote means those who have been arrested on suspicion of a violent or sexual offence will banned from parliament, pending the approval of an independent panel.

Mike Clancy, the general secretary of the Prospect trade union, said the result was an “important and overdue victory for common-sense and those working on the parliamentary estate” while FDA general secretary Dave Penman added: “Parliament is a workplace for thousands and these new formal procedures give staff the safe working environment they deserve and would expect in any other workplace.”

Ms Phillips, who advocated for the case for exclusion at the point of arrest, wrote on X: “Shit! We won the vote by one.”

In the debate preceding the vote, she told the Commons: “Today, just on this one day, I have spoken to two women who were raped by members of this parliament; that’s a fairly standard day for me.

“Exclusion at the point of charge sends a clear message to victims that not only will we not investigate unless a victim goes to the police but we won’t act unless they’re charged, which happens in less than 1% of cases. ‘So what’s the point?’ was essentially what this victim said to me.

“I’m going to stand here and speak up for them because every single one of them wishes for this to be on arrest.”

The exclusion policy was put forward following a number of incidents involving MPs in recent years. Currently, party whips decide if and when an MP accused of an offence should be prevented from attending the parliamentary estate.

The House of Commons Commission originally recommended that a risk assessment should take place on whether an MP should be prevented from attending the parliamentary estate if they were arrested on suspicion of committing a violent or sexual offence.

But the plans were later scaled back following objections from some Tory MPs and fears of “vexatious” claims.

Commons leader Penny Mordaunt, the proponent of the plans to raise the exclusion threshold to charge rather than arrest, said the number of MPs and Lords that had been victim of “vexatious” harassment claims was “surprisingly large”.

“Many members raised the comparison about the profession that we’re in and other professions, particularly the police force, and of course the police themselves may be also subject, not infrequently, to vexatious claims made against them for all kinds of reasons.

“But I would say the volume of members of both Houses that have come to see me during this process, who have been victim of vexatious claims, was surprisingly large.”

Ms Mordaunt also clarified that the risk-based exclusion practices would apply to the Speaker and deputy-speakers, stating “if they were panel members, they would clearly recuse themselves as they would in other scenarios”.

Former minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg used the debate to describe the exclusion plans as an “extraordinary power grab by standing orders to undermine a fundamental of our constitution” while Sir Michael Ellis, a former attorney general, also said there were constitutional and legal implications to excluding MPs on arrest.

“There is a key principle here, there’s a golden thread that runs through our system that a person must not suffer imposition before guilt has been proven,” he said.

“And it is offensive against the laws of natural justice, and in fact contrary to human rights to do so.”

Continue Reading

Politics

SEC’s Crenshaw says agency playing ‘regulatory Jenga’ with crypto

Published

on

By

SEC’s Crenshaw says agency playing ‘regulatory Jenga’ with crypto

SEC’s Crenshaw says agency playing ‘regulatory Jenga’ with crypto

The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s sole Democratic Commissioner has said the agency is “playing a game of regulatory Jenga” with its approach to the crypto industry and market regulation under the Trump administration.

In May 19 remarks at the SEC Speaks event, Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw cautioned against what she described as a dangerous dismantling of “discrete but interrelated rules” on crypto and the wider market.

She likened market stability to a “Jenga tower” that the agency’s rules had “carefully developed over the years,” which could topple if some rules were removed.

In addition to a lamentable loss of staff, Crenshaw said the SEC has used staff guidance to effectively reverse rules without proper analysis or public comment, particularly around crypto

“Our statements on these crypto-related issues are the equivalent of a wink and nod intended to convey that we do not plan to rigorously apply our laws in certain, specific situations.”

She added that the regulator has abandoned enforcement actions, especially in crypto markets, creating what she calls “regulation by non-enforcement.”

“I am deeply troubled by the Commission’s abandonment of swaths of our enforcement program,” she said. 

SEC’s Crenshaw says agency playing ‘regulatory Jenga’ with crypto
SEC Commissioner Crenshaw. Source: SEC

Crenshaw, the SEC’s last remaining Democrat commissioner, said the agency’s “about-face” is problematic for a host of reasons, such as corroding its reputation in court, undermining its credibility, and casting doubt on the state of “longstanding and fundamental case law.”

Related: SEC is scaling back its crypto enforcement unit: Report

Crenshaw, who had also opposed the SEC’s settlement with Ripple, said in her latest remarks that the 2022 FTX collapse was an example of what a “large-scale crypto crisis” can look like. 

“Those risks have not gone away, but the calls for serious regulatory scrutiny are a lot quieter these days,” she said.

“Failing to appreciate and address these risks and complexities destines us to repeat hard lessons with high stakes as crypto becomes increasingly entangled with traditional finance.”

In comparison, remarks from the SEC’s Republican commissioners welcomed the agency’s embrace of the crypto sector. 

Crypto was “languishing in SEC limbo”

SEC chair Paul Atkins said at the SEC Speaks event that “crypto markets have been languishing in SEC limbo for years,” adding that the agency should not be in the business of stifling innovation of crypto companies.

Commissioner Hester Peirce, who heads the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, said in remarks that the agency’s approach under the Biden administration has “evaded sound regulatory practice and must be corrected.”

She also claimed that crypto did not come under the purview of securities laws because “most currently existing crypto assets in the market” are not securities. 

“Even if a broad swath of the crypto assets trading in secondary markets today were initially offered and sold subject to an investment contract, they clearly are no longer bought and sold in securities transactions. Many of these crypto assets are functional.”

Commissioner Mark Uyeda echoed the sentiment of his peers, stating that the SEC “should undertake efforts to provide assurances that regulation by enforcement will not be a tool used for future policymaking.”

Magazine: Arthur Hayes $1M Bitcoin tip, altcoins ‘powerful rally’ looms: Hodler’s Digest

Continue Reading

Politics

US Senate moves forward with GENIUS stablecoin bill

Published

on

By

US Senate moves forward with GENIUS stablecoin bill

US Senate moves forward with GENIUS stablecoin bill

The US Senate has voted to advance a key stablecoin-regulating bill after Democrat Senators blocked an attempt to move the bill forward earlier in May over concerns about President Donald Trump’s sprawling crypto empire.

A key procedural vote on the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act, or GENIUS Act, passed in a 66-32 vote on May 20.

Several Democrats changed their votes to pass the motion to invoke cloture, which will now set the bill up for debate on the Senate floor.

Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of the bill’s key backers, said on May 15 that she thinks it’s a “fair target” to have the GENIUS Act passed by May 26 — Memorial Day in the US.

Government, United States, Stablecoin
The US Senate voted 66-32 to advance debate on the GENIUS stablecoin bill. Source: US Senate

The GENIUS Act was introduced on Feb. 4 by US Senator Bill Hagerty and seeks to regulate the nearly $250 billion stablecoin market — currently dominated by Tether (USDT) and Circle’s USDC (USDC).

The bill requires stablecoins be fully backed, have regular security audits and approval from federal or state regulators. Only licensed entities can issue stablecoins, while algorithmic stablecoins are restricted.

Several Democratic senators withdrew support for the bill on May 8, blocking a motion to move it forward, citing concerns over potential conflicts of interest involving Trump’s crypto ventures and anti-money laundering provisions.

Related: Circle plans IPO but talks with Ripple, Coinbase could lead to sale: Report

The bill was revised soon after to receive enough bipartisan support to proceed to a vote.

Hagerty’s stablecoin bill builds on the discussion draft he submitted for former Representative Patrick McHenry’s Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act in October.

Magazine: Crypto wanted to overthrow banks, now it’s becoming them in stablecoin fight

Continue Reading

Politics

DOJ is investigating Coinbase data breach— Report

Published

on

By

DOJ is investigating Coinbase data breach— Report

DOJ is investigating Coinbase data breach— Report

The US Department of Justice is reportedly conducting a probe over Coinbase’s contracted customer service agents in India, who accepted bribes in exchange for allowing criminals access to user data.

According to a May 19 Bloomberg report, DOJ investigators are looking into the data breach, which Coinbase disclosed to the public on May 15. The exchange reported that a group of customer support contractors — subsequently fired — “abused their access to […] systems to steal the account data for a small subset of customers.”

“We have notified and are working with the DOJ and other US and international law enforcement agencies and welcome law enforcement’s pursuit of criminal charges against these bad actors,” said Coinbase’s chief legal officer, Paul Grewal, according to Bloomberg.

Related: New Zealand man arrested in $265M crypto scam tied to FBI probe

Though “no passwords, private keys, or funds were exposed” according to Coinbase, the data breach resulted in social engineering attacks targeting users, including a Sequoia Capital partner, with losses estimated at up to $400 million. The attackers also attempted to extort $20 million from Coinbase in exchange for not disclosing the breach, which the company refused.

Backlash in the courts

The attempted social engineering attacks have resulted in Coinbase users filing several lawsuits against the exchange, alleging that the company mishandled their personal data. One user, a retired artist named Ed Suman, reported losing $2 million to the scammers.

Coinbase’s stock price fluctuated following the news of the breach and an unrelated probe from the US Securities and Exchange Commission over its reported “verified user” numbers. Cointelegraph reached out to Coinbase for comment but had not received a response at the time of publication.

Magazine: Father-son team lists Africa’s XRP Healthcare on Canadian stock exchange

Continue Reading

Trending