Connect with us

Regulation

Custodia Bank Files Appeal Stating Fed’s Law Violation & Dual Banking System

Published

8 months ago

on


Custodia Bank has filed an opening brief in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. They are challenging a Wyoming judge’s decision that granted the Federal ReserveFederal Reserve the power to deny it a master account. Moreover, the brief urges the appeals court to instruct the Wyoming district court to revoke its denial and grant Custodia a master account.

Custodia Bank Files Opening Brief In 10th Circuit

Custodia Bank CEO Caitlin Long has hired two veteran Supreme Court attorneys for the lawsuit against Fed. Their arguments are focused on several key points, including violation of the dual banking system. Custodia Bank’s lawyers argue that the Fed’s authority to deny master accounts to state-chartered banks undermines the dual banking system.

This system allows banks to choose between a state charter or a federal charter. Hence, they referenced the case Cantero v. Bank of America. The 10th circuit brief stated, “The United States maintains a dual system of banking, made up of parallel federal and state banking systems.”

In addition, Custodia’s lawyers also argue that the Fed’s power to discriminate against state-chartered banks may violate the Monetary Control Act (MCA). The MCA ensures fair access for state-chartered banks to the Fed’s services. In addition, they pointed to Congress’s mention of the word “shall” in the MCA, which states that “all Federal Reserve bank services…shall be available to non-member depository institutions.”

Furthermore, Custodia’s brief asserts that there is no basis for the Fed’s actions to be immune from judicial review. They argue that mandamus relief is available against the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (FRBKC). Moreover, they state that the Administrative Procedure Act provides a remedy against the Board when it defies a congressional command.

In addition, the brief explains the historical significance of the dual banking system. It highlights that this system has survived for over 150 years and continues to be durable and responsive to the economy. Hence, the dual banking system respects distinct and equal state and federal roles.

Also Read: Custodia Bank CEO Predicts “Rip Roaring” Bitcoin Bull Market, Slams Warren Wing

Other Arguments Against Fed

Wyoming enacted a statute in 2019 to allow qualified applicants to obtain a Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI) charter, Custodia’s brief highlights. SPDIs take deposits, facilitate U.S. dollar payments, and provide digital asset custody services.

Moreover, they do not lend and must comply with all applicable federal laws. This is central to the Custodia Bank case because the Fed’s refusal to grant a master account to an eligible SPDI like Custodia is discriminatory.

Furthermore, the brief explains that the MCA was enacted to address payment access and unequal treatment of member and non-member banks. The MCA required the Fed to provide all depository institutions direct access to its payment system services on the same terms as member banks.

In addition, Custodia’s lawyers argue that Section 248a(c)(2) of the MCA sets forth a fee schedule for Fed services and requires these services to be available to nonmember depository institutions. The brief states, “All Federal Reserve bank services covered by the fee schedule shall be available to nonmember depository institutions.”

Also Read: Ripple Vs SEC News: Ripple President Clears the Air on Lawsuit and XRP ETF

✓ Share:

CoinGape comprises an experienced team of native content writers and editors working round the clock to cover news globally and present news as a fact rather than an opinion. CoinGape writers and reporters contributed to this article.

The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.





Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Regulation

US SEC Faces Backlash as Bybit Hack Highlights Lack of Oversight

Published

35 minutes ago

on

February 22, 2025

By


John Reed Stark has pointed out that one of the causes of a rising risk in crypto security is the US SEC cutting back on enforcement activities. This includes a latest attack on crypto trading platform Bybit which compromised and stole $1.5 billion belonging to customers.

The attack, which analysts describe as the largest crypto heist in history, has raised concerns about the lack of regulatory safeguards protecting investors.

US SEC Criticized as Bybit Hack Highlights Security Gaps

According to a recent post on X, Stark criticized the US SEC’s decision to roll back enforcement actions against cryptocurrency platforms. He pointed out that Bybit’s security breach is a direct consequence of weak regulatory oversight, leaving investors unprotected against sophisticated cyberattacks.

The attack on Bybit has been linked to North Korea’s Lazarus Group, a state-sponsored hacking collective known for targeting cryptocurrency exchanges. Analysts at blockchain forensics firm Elliptic reported that the group has stolen billions in crypto over the years, using complex laundering methods to fund North Korea’s missile programs. Without strict cybersecurity requirements enforced by the US SEC, exchanges remain vulnerable to such threats.

EX SEC John Reed Stark added,

“For crypto-exchanges, there’s no regulatory oversight; no consumer protections; no net capital requirements; no licensure of individuals; no US audits, inspections or examinations; no segregation of customer funds; no insurance, no cybersecurity requirements; no transparency; no accountability; no SEC/FDIC/OCC/etc. engagement and the list goes on”

Bybit’s $1.5 Billion Hack Exposes Risks

The Bybit hack has sparked concerns about the broader security risks in the crypto industry. Crypto exchanges lack oversight, unlike traditional financial institutions. They have no mandatory audits, capital reserves, or customer asset protection.

Bybit has responded by securing bridge loans to cover losses and working to recover the stolen assets. However, experts remain skeptical about the likelihood of successful recovery. This incident underscores how the absence of SEC enforcement leaves crypto investors exposed to large-scale losses with no regulatory safeguards.

With the US SEC pulling back from crypto-related investigations and enforcement, investors are left without key protections. The lack of insurance, consumer safeguards, and oversight mechanisms means that customers impacted by breaches like the Bybit hack have limited options for recovering their funds.

As the US SEC changes its regulatory stance, critics raise concerns. They argue that offshore crypto exchanges may still operate with weak security. This regulatory gap increases the risk of further large-scale hacks, placing investors at continued financial risk.

The US SEC decision to halt enforcement actions has sparked debates on crypto regulation. Ongoing cases against major exchanges are now on hold. Some industry participants see reduced oversight as a way to promote innovation. Others warn it increases risks of fraud, security breaches, and financial instability.

Following the recent crypto hack, Bybit has launched a $140 million recovery bounty to track and reclaim stolen funds. The exchange is offering rewards to individuals or organizations that provide information leading to the identification of hackers.

✓ Share:

Ronny Mugendi

Ronny Mugendi is a seasoned crypto journalist with four years of professional experience, having contributed significantly to various media outlets on cryptocurrency trends and technologies. With over 4000 published articles across various media outlets, he aims to inform, educate and introduce more people to the Blockchain and DeFi world. Outside of his journalism career, Ronny enjoys the thrill of bike riding, exploring new trails and landscapes.

Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.





Source link

Continue Reading

Regulation

Ripple Vs SEC Lawsuit May Take Longer To Settle Than Coinbase, Expert Warns

Published

21 hours ago

on

February 21, 2025

By


Ripple vs SEC lawsuit: The legal battle between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may take more time to resolve than the ongoing case involving Coinbase, legal experts suggest.

With a ruling already in place and other procedural complexities, experts believe that Ripple’s case faces a different set of challenges compared to Coinbase’s recent settlement.

Ripple Vs SEC Lawsuit May Take Longer To Settle

After the US SEC disclosed plans to drop the Coinbase lawsuit, speculations and debate have taken a turn on the potential of the Ripple vs SEC lawsuit outcome and when. However, legal experts have noted the Ripple lawsuit may not be as smooth as Coinbase case. One major factor making the Ripple vs SEC lawsuit more complicated is the ruling already handed down by Judge Torres. According to the filings, Ripple had been ordered to pay a $125 million penalty as part of the settlement with the SEC.

Subsequently, according to experts, the firm’s options now include the possibility of requesting a penalty reduction, which would require both parties to reach an agreement. Legal expert Sherrie, in a recent conversation on X, noted that while a settlement may be reached, it is unlikely that the separation of sales, as stipulated by Judge Torres, would be altered.

Any request to reduce the penalty, she said, would need to be carefully considered by both Ripple and the SEC. Additionally, a request to dismiss the appeal would mean that the original ruling by Judge Torres remains in effect.

“It’s more complicated for Ripple, given the existing ruling. The penalty would still stand unless both parties agree to a reduction,” Sherrie stated.

Ripple Cross-Appeal and Timing Considerations

Ripple vs SEC lawsuit involves more layers due to its cross-appeal, which must also be taken into account. Legal analysts suggest that the timing of Ripple’s upcoming filing—scheduled for April—may be pivotal in determining the case’s trajectory.

Ripple’s request to extend the filing deadline to April 16, 2025, gives further credence to the idea that a resolution may take longer than anticipated. As Ripple’s legal team moves forward with the appeal, both Ripple and the SEC will have to consider how to approach the next steps. As Ripple works toward securing an agreement or a potential settlement, it may continue to assess the possibility of lowering the penalty.

“Ripple’s next filing deadline is in April, which gives both parties more time to negotiate,” said legal expert Bill Morgan.

Ripple lawsuit Appellate Court’s Role

The involvement of the Appellate Court could also extend the timeline for resolving the Ripple vs SEC lawsuit. The court has a panel of three judges who will review and hear the case, a process that takes additional time compared to the procedures of a District Court. This contrasts with the process seen in the Coinbase case, where a settlement was reached more quickly, possibly due to the absence of such complications.

Eleanor Terrett, a FOX journalist, noted that the SEC may also choose to seek an agreement with Ripple at the district court level. The judge overseeing the case, Torres, retains jurisdiction until August 2025, and any changes to the terms of the ruling would require her approval.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty with the Ripple case. The SEC’s next steps are unclear, and any decisions may need Torres’s approval,” said Terrett.

Jeremy Hogan also suggested that Ripple vs SEC lawsuit might take longer to resolve due to the multiple steps involved in the appeal process.

“This isn’t just a straightforward case of settlement or dismissal,” Hogan remarked

✓ Share:

Kelvin Munene Murithi

Kelvin is a distinguished writer with expertise in crypto and finance, holding a Bachelor’s degree in Actuarial Science. Known for his incisive analysis and insightful content, he possesses a strong command of English and excels in conducting thorough research and delivering timely cryptocurrency market updates.

Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.





Source link

Continue Reading

Regulation

ConsenSys Submits Letter to SEC on DeFi Rule Amendment Concerns

Published

22 hours ago

on

February 21, 2025

By


ConsenSys has submitted a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) expressing concerns about the proposed amendments to the definition of “exchange” under U.S. securities laws. The letter, addressed to Commissioner Hester Peirce and the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, requests the removal of the rulemaking from the regulatory agenda.

ConsenSys Challenges US SEC Proposed DeFi Rule Change

According to a recent submission, ConsenSys has urged the SEC to withdraw its proposed rule that expands the definition of an “exchange” to include decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. The company argues that the amendments exceed the SEC’s legal authority.

ConsenSys asserts that the proposed rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by improperly broadening the regulatory scope. Additionally, the company claims that the rule conflicts with the U.S. Constitution by imposing regulatory obligations on decentralized protocols that do not fit the traditional definition of an exchange.

SEC’s proposed amendments on DeFi exchanges received substantial opposition during the 2022 comment period. ConsenSys referenced prior submissions made in April 2022 and June 2023, reinforcing its position that blockchain-based systems should not be categorized as traditional financial intermediaries.

The submission to Hester Peirce’s task force comes just weeks after the launch of a dedicated website outlining its role in establishing clear crypto regulations. The new platform provides a way for industry participants, including ConsenSys, to submit input and engage with regulators.

Concerns Over US SEC’s Statutory Authority

Moreover, ConsenSys maintains that the SEC lacks the statutory authority to extend the definition of an exchange to blockchain-based systems. The company argues that the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 defines an exchange as an entity that provides a centralized market for securities transactions. The proposed rule, according to ConsenSys, improperly expands this definition to cover decentralized protocols.

The submission points out that DeFi platforms operate differently from traditional financial exchanges. Rather than facilitating transactions in a centralized manner, these platforms rely on smart contracts and peer-to-peer networks. ConsenSys warns that regulating these decentralized technologies as securities exchanges would create compliance burdens that are incompatible with their structure.

Consequences On Blockchain Innovation

The letter also warns that the amendments could negatively affect blockchain development and DeFi adoption. ConsenSys states that the proposed rule could discourage innovation by imposing regulatory uncertainty on blockchain developers and users.

The crypto company contends that the amendments could force decentralized platforms out of the U.S. market. By treating DeFi protocols as regulated exchanges, developers may face increased legal risks, reducing the incentive to create blockchain-based financial services within the country.

In its submission,  the crypto company has expressed willingness to discuss the issue further with the SEC’s Crypto Task Force. The company emphasized the importance of ensuring that blockchain regulations align with technological realities and legal constraints.

ConsenSys reaffirmed its stance that the SEC’s proposed rule should be removed from the regulatory agenda. With the new Hester Peirce Crypto Task Force, there is hope for ConsenSys and other blockchain firms facing regulatory scrutiny. 

Most recently, the pro-crypto task force influenced the decision to pause the SEC’s lawsuit against Binance for 60 days. The review of cryptocurrency regulations may lead to clearer guidelines, potentially benefiting DeFi platforms.

✓ Share:

Ronny Mugendi

Ronny Mugendi is a seasoned crypto journalist with four years of professional experience, having contributed significantly to various media outlets on cryptocurrency trends and technologies. With over 4000 published articles across various media outlets, he aims to inform, educate and introduce more people to the Blockchain and DeFi world. Outside of his journalism career, Ronny enjoys the thrill of bike riding, exploring new trails and landscapes.

Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 coin2049.io