Regulation
XRP Lawyer Says SEC Knows Ripple ODL Sales Are Not Investment Contracts
In a recent filing, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) opposed Ripple’s motion to seal and redact evidence related to remedies briefing and documents. Moreover, the SEC urged the court to order the disclosure of Ripple’s business details from the agency’s March 22 remedies briefing.
However, Ripple had previously requested that financial reports, post-complaint XRP institutional sales details, and other sensitive information remain confidential due to the high risks to the firm. Amid the chaos, Bill Morgan, a pro-XRP advocate, underscored that the SEC alredy knows that Ripple’s On-demand Liquidity (ODL) sales aren’t investment contracts.
SEC Mentions Ripple ODL Sales In Filing
Pro-XRP lawyer Bill Morgan shared a snapshot from the SEC’s latest response. The snapshot highlighted, “The same is true for Ripple’s aged securities offering and sales information. Ripple wants to hide the extent to which it offered XRP at discriminatory prices. But the period when Ripple was offering discounts goes back to 2014 and ended in December 2020.”
It added, “Ripple has not shown how the discounts it offered four years ago or more would matter, particularly since Ripple seeks to avoid remedies by claiming it ‘has changed the way it sells XRP and changed its contracts.’” in addition, the SEC emphasized that Ripple’s current contracts are not the ones under scrutiny.
The agency further added, “Indeed, the contracts at issue are not ODL contracts—the only type of Institutional Sales contracts Ripple claims it enters into today… none of Ripple’s current contracts contain lockups. The redactions the SEC opposes thus do not reveal ‘long-term business plans of any kind.’”
Lawyer Explains SEC’s Stance On ODL Sales
Morgan elaborated on the SEC’s position, explaining, “The SEC clarifies that none of the sales to institutions with discounts were ODL contracts.” He added, “The SEC would have reviewed the ODL contracts and observed that they do not have discounts or the features referred to in the summary judgment that made institutional buyer contracts to be investment contracts according to judge Torres.”
Furthermore, Morgan pointed out a key distinction in the nature of ODL contracts. He noted that the ODL contracts require customers to buy XRP at market price and to use the tokens in ODL transactions. Moreover, he emphasized that these customers agree on not holding them as investments. Hence, he questioned why Judge Torres categorized these contracts similarly to other institutional agreements.
The lawyer speculated, “It remains a mystery why Judge Torres lumped them in with the other contracts with Institutions.” In addition, the pro-XRP attorney noted that the SEC knows that its stance on the ODL sales wrong. He stated, “I bet SEC knows the ODL contracts are not investment contracts.” This ongoing legal battle between the SEC and Ripple highlights the complexities surrounding cryptocurrency regulation and the definitions of securities.
Also Read: Ripple SEC Lawsuit: SEC Files Opposition to Sealing XRP Details, Here’s Everything
SEC Files Opposition Against Ripple
On Monday, May 20, the U.S. SEC filed a response opposing part of Ripple’s motion to seal and redact certain documents. The SEC argues that Ripple’s attempt to “conceal financial and securities sales information” is unlawful, as the information is crucial for the remedies phase and public understanding of the penalties.
Whilst, Ripple seeks to redact details such as the amount of its current assets, recent sales figures, revenues and expenses, and discounts offered to institutional investors. However, the SEC contends that these details are essential for determining penalties, injunctive relief, disgorgement, and investor harm. They argue that Ripple has not provided sufficient evidence that making this information public would cause significant harm.
Furthermore, the SEC states that the financial information in question is outdated and that some of it is already publicly available. The regulator also asserts that Ripple’s reliance on previous court sealing approvals does not apply to the current situation. The SEC maintains that transparency is necessary for the court’s decisions and public accountability.
Also Read: XRP Lawsuit: Ripple Moves 50M XRP Ahead Major Deadline, What’s Happening?
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.
Polymarket, a crypto-based prediction market, is likely to be prohibited by France’s gambling regulator, the ANJ, after a huge amount of bets were placed on the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Since the global audience engaged in prediction platforms, Polymarket experienced a record jump, with $450 million expected to be distributed to users following the victory of Donald Trump.
This increase of betting volume and large stakes has become a matter of concern for the French regulator because the platform offers unlicensed gambling services.
$450 Million in Payouts Expected After U.S. Election Bets
Prediction markets, which are expected to increase their payout to election bettors to around $450m following Donald Trump’s projected win, are attracting increasing attention.
Although conventional polls pointed to a closer contest, prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi recorded a steep rise in Trump’s chances in the last few days, indicating a strong divergence with poll-based expectations.
Among the active users of Polymarket, a French trader called “Theo” made a $26 million bet on Trump’s win and won $49 million. This big bet made Polymarket popular, as the French authorities paid attention to the platform and its popularity among French residents, which led to concerns about the compliance of the platform with French gambling legislation.
France’s ANJ Considers Blocking Access to Polymarket
The ANJ has claimed that Polymarket is involved in gambling which is only allowed in France by licensed operators. According to local media, the regulator has the power to ban access to unlicensed gambling sites and is expected to restrict access to Polymarket soon.
An ANJ insider said: “Polymarket is just betting on something that is completely uncertain, which is exactly what gambling is.”
If put in place, the ban would prevent the usage of the application in France, despite the fact that users can still try to avoid the restriction by connecting to VPN. The ANJ could also try to influence media outlets and directories to stop advertising or linking to Polymarket and, thus, limit its audiences even more.
Regulatory Concerns Over Market Manipulation
The high level of activity on Polymarket has led to speculations that the platform may be used for market manipulation. Two blockchain analysis firms, Chaos Labs and Inca Digital, recently revealed that there was potential wash trading within Polymarket’s U.S. presidential betting market where the same assets are bought and sold to simply create a fake market. This type of trading is rather manipulative and can lead to the distortion of signals on the market and mislead other participants.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission also has concerns about prediction markets and put forward a rule in May aiming at stricter regulation of such markets due to the potential for manipulation.
Although no final decision has been reached, regulatory actions could impact Polymarket’s ability to operate freely in other markets, including the U.S.
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.
FTX co-founder Gary Wang has requested a federal judge not to send him to prison. He noted that he is testifying against the former business partner, Sam Bankman-Fried, someone he has known for a long time in a fraud case.
The lawyer for Wang submitted a sentencing memo in Manhattan federal court wherein he claimed that his client should not be incarcerated as he provided assistance to the prosecutors as well as his role in the scheme was comparatively less.
Wang, who pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy when FTX went bankrupt in 2022, is to receive his sentencing on the 20th of November.
FTX Co-Founder Gary Wang Appeals for No Jail Time
The defense counsel for FTX co-founder Gary Wang highlighted his client’s early cooperation with the federal prosecutors as one of the key reasons why the court should consider him for mercy. According to Graff, Wang was one of the first FTX executives to meet with the authorities and share information on the FTX and Alameda Research. Wang gave a testimony in the trial that led to the recent conviction of Bankman-Fried who was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Speaking at the trial, Wang described how he was ordered to change the code of FTX in order to enable Alameda Research to use the assets of the company’s clients, which is one of the key points of Bankman-Fried’s fraud.
FTX co-founder’s lawyer noted that his involvement in the fraud was less than some of the other former executives, including Caroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research, and Nishad Singh, FTX’s former head of engineering. Wang, his lawyer said, did not start or operate the scheme and was not personally involved in the provision of false information to the investors.
“Gary was not involved in the scheme at its inception, was never provided with details of the scheme, and, in contrast to Bankman-Fried, Ellison and Singh, never engaged in any affirmative action of deception,” Graff wrote.
Sentencing Comparisons to Other Executives
Wang’s attorney argued that a prison sentence would create an “unwarranted sentencing disparity” with Nishad Singh, who avoided jail time after pleading guilty and cooperating with the government. Singh, who faced potential decades-long sentences, was ultimately sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release.
Ellison, another major cooperator, received a two-year prison sentence. FTX co-founder Gary Wang contended that Wang’s level of involvement was even lower than Singh’s, supporting a non-custodial sentence for Wang as well.
Graff also noted Wang’s personal circumstances, stating that Wang is expecting the birth of his first child shortly after his sentencing date. Wang’s attorney suggested that allowing him to remain with his family would align with the court’s treatment of other cooperators in the case.
“Gary wants nothing more than to be a good husband and father and to continue his work to facilitate FTX victims’ recovery,” Graff wrote.
Separately, the U.S. government is working to reclaim approximately $13.25 million in political donations made by FTX executives, including Bankman-Fried and Singh. Judge Lewis Kaplan however granted the government additional time to negotiate the return of these funds, extending discussions with the PACs until January 15, 2025.
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.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a motion seeking judgment in its case against cryptocurrency exchange Kraken, focusing on defenses such as “fair notice” and the “major questions doctrine.”
This move, led by SEC Chairman Gary Gensler’s team, aims to limit further discovery into the agency’s regulatory policies, particularly those affecting the crypto sector. The timing of the filing has drawn attention, as some in the industry view it as a strategic attempt to shield the SEC’s methods from closer examination.
US SEC Files Motion for Judgment Against Kraken
The SEC’s motion seeks to dismiss defenses put forward by Kraken that include the fair notice defense and the major questions doctrine. The fair notice defense argues that Kraken did not receive adequate regulatory guidance regarding its crypto-related activities.
Meanwhile, the major questions doctrine suggests that regulatory agencies, such as the SEC, should not make major policy decisions without clear direction from Congress.
Subsequently, the US SEC’s motion appears intended to prevent further discovery into its policies, which Kraken and other crypto advocates have criticized as inconsistent and unclear. A similar motion was filed in Ripple case, where the US SEC failed to secure a judgment. Michael O’Connor, an attorney representing Kraken expects a similar outcome in the Kraken case, though Kraken has indicated that it has additional defenses should this motion proceed.
This Is A Breaking News, Please Check Back For More
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.
Ethereum Foundation Launches Pectra Tesnet ‘Mekong’, ETH Price Set For $4000
Polymarket Faces Ban in France as US Election Betting Ends
Trump and Lummis Unite on $76 Billion National Bitcoin Reserve
MrBeast faces allegations of crypto insider trading
Why Bitcoin Users Are Moving to Altcoins? As Ethereum Price Jumps 11%
XRP Price Ready to Rally? Signs Point to a Bullish Move
2.52 Million Altcoins Are Ruining Crypto’s Future
Animoca Brands Valuation Tanks 75% In Two Years, Here’s Why
Crypto exchange BingX hacked for $43 million
Are The Big Players Losing Interest?
Coinbase cbBTC Set to go Live on Solana
Hong Kong’s Securities Association Tips Authorities On Crypto Self-Regulation
2.52 Million Altcoins Are Ruining Crypto’s Future
Animoca Brands Valuation Tanks 75% In Two Years, Here’s Why
Crypto exchange BingX hacked for $43 million
Are The Big Players Losing Interest?
Coinbase cbBTC Set to go Live on Solana
Hong Kong’s Securities Association Tips Authorities On Crypto Self-Regulation
-
Altcoin21 hours agoXRP Price At Risk As Ripple Moves $250M?
-
Ethereum14 hours agoEthereum Analyst Sets $3,400 Target Once ETH Breaks Key Resistance – Details
-
Market12 hours agoBitcoin Price Pushes Rally Further: Bulls in Full Force
-
Altcoin23 hours agoShiba Inu Burn Rate Rockets 3,700% Sparking Optimism, SHIB To Hit $2?
-
Market10 hours agoSolana (SOL) Rallies Strongly, Setting Sights on $200
-
Altcoin22 hours agoRipple CLO Reveals How Donald Trump Can Make US The Crypto Capital
-
Regulation19 hours agoUS SEC Files Motion for Judgment Against Kraken, Challenges Key Defenses
-
Ethereum5 hours agoMrBeast faces allegations of crypto insider trading
✓ Share: