Connect with us

Published

on

The legal duel between the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Kraken, a leading cryptocurrency exchange, looks like another misguided attempt by the SEC to exert control over an industry that fundamentally challenges an outdated regulatory playbook. The agency’s lawsuit, filed in November, accuses Kraken of operating as an unregistered securities exchange.

The lawsuit isn’t just a repeat of the SEC’s past failures. It’s also a glaring example of regulatory overreach that fails to grasp the essence of cryptocurrency. It mirrors the agency’s actions against Coinbase, which mark a pattern of aggressive regulation that is both ineffectual and counterproductive. In its case against Coinbase, the SEC allegations similarly involved operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of cryptocurrency exchanges.

The lawsuit isn’t just a repeat of the SEC’s past failures. It’s also a glaring example of regulatory overreach that fails to grasp the essence of cryptocurrency. It mirrors the agency’s actions against Coinbase, which mark a pattern of aggressive regulation that is both ineffectual and counterproductive. In its case against Coinbase, the SEC allegations similarly involved operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of cryptocurrency exchanges.

Unlike traditional securities exchanges, platforms like Kraken offer a diverse range of digital assets that do not fit neatly into the securities framework. This misclassification by the SEC reveals a lack of understanding of the unique characteristics of cryptocurrencies, which function as decentralized assets, often with utility or currency-like features rather than conventional securities.

Related: Expect some crypto companies to fail in the wake of Bitcoin’s halving

One of the most striking issues is the absence of technological neutrality — the principle that regulatory frameworks should apply equally to all forms of technology, without favoring or penalizing any particular one. By forcing cryptocurrencies into the traditional securities mold, the SEC is not only misapplying laws but also showing a clear bias against digital assets. This lack of neutrality not only hinders innovation but also unfairly targets platforms that are striving to work within the regulatory landscape.

The SEC lawsuit against Kraken shamed the exchange for telling users they could attempt to profit by dollar-cost averaging into Solana. Source: Securities & Exchange Commission

The aggressive stance of the SEC risks driving innovation and business away from the U.S. to more crypto-friendly jurisdictions. This phenomenon, known as regulatory arbitrage, could result in the U.S. losing its position as a leader in technological innovation. The crypto industry is global, and excessive regulation in one country simply pushes businesses to relocate, taking their economic benefits and innovations with them.

Related: 3 theses that will drive Ethereum and Bitcoin in the next bull market

The Kraken lawsuit is set to become another example of the SEC’s failure to successfully regulate the crypto industry, akin to the outcome of its actions against Coinbase. This repetitive cycle of aggressive and misinformed regulation is not only futile but also harmful to the credibility of the SEC. It sends a message that the regulatory body is more interested in flexing its regulatory muscle than in understanding and adapting to new technological paradigms.

The case isn’t just an isolated legal battle. It is indicative of a broader issue within the U.S. regulatory framework’s approach to cryptocurrencies. The SEC must move beyond its current, outdated tactics and engage with the crypto industry in a more informed and constructive manner. Regulation is necessary, but it must be reasonable, well-informed, and designed to foster innovation, not stifle it.

It looks the SEC is set for another resounding defeat, which will serve as one more reminder of the need for a new approach by regulators.

Daniele Servadei is the 20-year-old founder and CEO of Sellix, an Italian e-commerce platform that has processed more than $75 million in transactions for more than 2.3 million customers worldwide. He’s attending the University of Parma for a degree in computer science.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Continue Reading

Politics

Australia’s top court sides with Block Earner, dismisses financial regulator’s suit

Published

on

By

<div>Australia’s top court sides with Block Earner, dismisses financial regulator's suit</div>

<div>Australia’s top court sides with Block Earner, dismisses financial regulator's suit</div>

The Federal Court of Australia has sided with fintech firm Block Earner in an appeal against a ruling that found it was required to hold a financial services license for its now-discontinued crypto-related products. 

Block Earner’s crypto-linked fixed-yield earning product is not a financial product, or a managed investment scheme, and is not a derivative under the Corporations Act, Justices David O’Callaghan, Wendy Abraham and Catherine Button said in an April 22 judgment. 

The trio said Block Earner’s yield product couldn’t be classed as an investment or financial product because users loaned crypto under fixed terms for interest payments and didn’t pool contributions to generate further benefits. The terms and conditions framed it as a loan, and users had no exposure to the firm’s business outside of the agreed interest rate, they added.

Law, Australia, ASIC, Court
A court has dismissed the legal proceedings against Block Earner and ordered Australia’s financial regulator to pay costs. Source: ASIC

The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), which first brought the case, has been ordered by the court to pay costs for the proceedings, including appeals. The regulator said in an April 22 press release that it is currently “considering this decision.”

Block Earner’s chief commercial officer, James Coombes, told Cointelegraph the court decision brings clarity that crypto assets shouldn’t be treated differently from other asset classes when applying existing laws. 

“Our product was simply defined as one where customers would lend their assets to us for a fixed return, there was no share in the upside of the pool of assets and as such no Managed Investment Scheme existed,” he said. 

“The fact that it included crypto assets should not alter that simple definition, and I believe this case forms a bedrock for ambitious brands around Australia to build from.”

An ASIC spokesperson declined further comment.

Earner product won’t make a return 

Despite the win in court, Block Earner will not be reviving its Earner product after axing it when legal proceedings began, but Coombes said that “crypto-backed loans products remain the core focus of the company.”

“Regulation going forward is not an easy task, and we empathise with the regulators on this point,” Coombes added. “We hope a collaborative process can bring about positive change.” 

Related: Australia outlines crypto regulation plan, promises action on debanking

ASIC launched civil legal proceedings in November 2022, arguing that Block Earner needed an Australian Financial Services License to offer its three crypto-linked fixed-yield earning products.

In February 2024, an Australian court initially found the fintech firm would need a financial services license to operate its crypto yield-bearing products. 

Another June 2024 ruling released Block Earner from any financial penalties because it had “acted honestly” and pursued its legal opinions before launching the products, which ASIC appealed.

Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered

Continue Reading

Politics

Former SEC Chair Jay Clayton sworn in as interim US attorney for Manhattan

Published

on

By

Former SEC Chair Jay Clayton sworn in as interim US attorney for Manhattan

Former SEC Chair Jay Clayton sworn in as interim US attorney for Manhattan

Former SEC Chair Jay Clayton confirmed that he has been appointed as the interim US Attorney for the Southern District of New York after the Democratic Party’s Senate leader used a “blue slip” to block a vote confirming Clayton’s position.

The appointment comes a little over five months after US President Donald Trump nominated Clayton to take on the role. He replaces Damian Williams, who played a major role in the conviction of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and other high-profile crypto cases.

Clayton said on April 22 his top priorities would be to protect public safety, ensure the integrity of the US financial system, defend national security interests and combat fraud, particularly against the elderly and most vulnerable.

The temporary nature of Clayton’s appointment resulted from Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s use of a blue slip to block Clayton’s confirmation on April 16, effectively preventing a Senate vote and official confirmation of his position. 

Blue slips can be used by senators to block US attorney or district court judicial nominees in their home states. 

Clayton is allowed to serve as interim US attorney for up to 120 days without Senate confirmation. After that, he will need to be approved in a Senate vote or receive a temporary extension of his interim status from Manhattan’s federal court.

Trump criticized Schumer’s move in an April 17 Truth Social post, pointing out that Clayton received bipartisan support in the Senate and that Clayton complied with all requests asked of him.

Former SEC Chair Jay Clayton sworn in as interim US attorney for Manhattan
Source: Donald Trump

The interim status of Clayton’s position will last until around Aug. 20. The role will see him as the top law enforcement officer for New York’s Southern District, encompassing the counties of New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess and Sullivan.

The Southern District of New York is the oldest federal court district in the US, and its location in the country’s financial epicenter means it often handles high-profile cases involving white-collar crime.

Clayton has shared mostly positive views on crypto

Clayton served as SEC chair between May 4, 2017, and Dec. 23, 2020, and brought 56 cases against crypto firms during his tenure.

Related: Oregon AG lawsuit against Coinbase calls XRP unregistered security

He stated in a December 2021 CNBC interview that he’s a “huge believer in crypto technology,” adding that “the efficiency benefits in the financial system and otherwise from tokenization are immense.”

Clayton has also praised Bitcoin (BTC) as a prominent store of value, but didn’t allow Bitcoin exchange-traded products during his time as SEC chair.

The first US Bitcoin investment product was approved in 2021 under former SEC Chair Gary Gensler.

Magazine: XRP win leaves Ripple and industry with no crypto legal precedent set

Continue Reading

Politics

Lawyer hopes Hashflare co-founders can ‘self-deport’ after sentencing

Published

on

By

<div>Lawyer hopes Hashflare co-founders can 'self-deport' after sentencing</div>

<div>Lawyer hopes Hashflare co-founders can 'self-deport' after sentencing</div>

A lawyer representing one of the co-founders of crypto mining service Hashflare has addressed how their criminal case may move forward after the pair received “self-deport” letters from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

In an April 11 filing in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, Hashflare co-founders Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turogin reported they had received a DHS letter directing them to “leave the United States” as part of a push by the Trump administration to effect mass deportations. The government letter contradicted orders from Judge Robert Lasnik, who restricted travel for Potapenko and Turogin as part of their bail conditions.

In February, the Estonian nationals pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud as part of a deal with authorities. Between 2015 and 2019, the two were responsible for defrauding Hashflare users out of more than $550 million. They also raised $25 million from investors in 2017, claiming they would establish a digital bank called Polybius. The firm was never created.

Indicted in October 2022, Potapenko and Turogin were arrested and held in Estonia before their extradition to the US in May 2024. Both have been free on bail since July 2024 but could face up to 20 years in prison each at sentencing.

Ordered to leave, forced to stay

“[Potapenko and Turogin each] got letters from DHS to their personal email saying ‘deport immediately,’” Reed Smith partner and defense counsel Mark Bini told Cointelegraph. “It caused some angst because [our client and his co-defendant], their conditions of release include that they comply with the law. And here you have this letter saying if you stay in the country, you’re breaking the law. And of course, their bail conditions say they can’t leave the Seattle area.” 

Related: Russian Gotbit founder strikes $23M plea deal with US prosecutors

The DHS letters ordering certain people to “depart the United States immediately” were reportedly sent to thousands of immigrants who had used the government’s CBP One app to enter the country legally. However, some citizens reported receiving the same letter in US President Donald Trump’s attempts to effect deportations through his office.  

Bini initially thought it was a possibility that the US government was suggesting that Potapenko or Turogin “self-deport” to Estonia after the Justice Department issued a memo hinting it would change its enforcement policy in criminal cases involving crypto. The Hashflare co-founders had been expected to remain in the jurisdiction until at least Aug. 14 for their sentencing hearings.

“I have not encountered this situation before, where you have essentially two folks in the federal government telling you conflicting things,” said Bini. 

The attorney added that Potapenko or Turogin now carried letters with them at all times that stated DHS had deferred action on their “self-deportation” for one year in the event that authorities mistakenly tried to detain them and remove them from the country. Though the pair could still receive prison time, Potapenko, Turogin and Hashflare reported returning $400 million in crypto payments to users and “agreed to forfeit their interests in assets that the government froze in 2022.”

“We’re going to try and convince the judge to frankly side with DHS and let them self-deport to Estonia to their families because we believe that there was no actual financial harm to the customers of Hashflare,” said Bini. “It’s a weird [case] because for our clients, we want to be deported. Our clients are Estonian. Their families are Estonian.” 

Magazine: XRP win leaves Ripple and industry with no crypto legal precedent set

Continue Reading

Trending