As a researcher with a background in law, I’ve been closely following the ongoing legal battle between Ripple Labs and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding XRP. Having read various expert opinions and court filings, I believe that the SEC’s case against Ripple is based on weak precedent and insufficient evidence.
The ongoing dispute between Ripple Labs and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over XRP is gaining intensity. The SEC seeks a hefty penalty of $2 billion against Ripple, but recent judicial indications suggest that the judge may be inclined to reject this demand.
SEC’s Case Relies on Weak Precedent
I, as a legal analyst, have noticed some controversy surrounding the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) position in the ongoing lawsuit against Ripple. James Murphy, representing Ripple, has raised concerns about the SEC’s reliance on a questionable court decision (SEC v. iFresh) to substantiate their claims of investor harm. The SEC alleges that Ripple artificially inflated XRP prices, resulting in investors missing out on anticipated discounts.
Regarding Ripple’s damages, the SEC’s Reply Brief fails to bring new substance to the debate over absence of victims and no disgorgement. The SEC leans on a single district court decision (SEC v. iFresh) which asserts that the “monetary injury” condition is met when a stock price drops.
— MetaLawMan (@MetaLawMan) May 8, 2024
As a crypto investor, I’ve noticed that one challenge we face is the lack of transparency from the SEC when it comes to their decision-making process regarding new coin launches. Attorney Jeremy brought up some valid concerns during the Ripple case, which have cast doubts on the SEC’s stance against Ripple. Based on the questionable foundation and insufficient evidence presented by the SEC in their arguments, Judge Torres may be inclined to dismiss their fine against Ripple.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-05-09 06:28