SEC files final response in XRP lawsuit, rejects Ripple’s claims

by

As a seasoned crypto investor with a deep understanding of the regulatory landscape, I find the SEC’s response to the ongoing lawsuit against Ripple both concerning and confusing. While it is essential for regulatory bodies to establish clear guidelines and enforce compliance, the aggressive approach taken by the SEC towards Rippe raises questions about its intentions and the potential impact on the broader crypto industry.

The SEC, or the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, has submitted its concluding argument in the ongoing legal battle between it and Ripple.

The commission disputes Ripple’s argument that it handled the XRP cryptocurrency without negligence, as stated in the filing.

The regulatory body noted that the court had previously rejected Ripple’s argument based on “fair notice” even though the company maintained there was no significant doubt about XRP‘s legal classification.

The SEC pointed out that Ripple tried to lessen its responsibility by emphasizing its collaboration with regulatory bodies since the 2013 initial coin offering of XRP. Nevertheless, the regulatory agency maintained that such compliance does not preclude potential future infringements.

Ripple’s statements about adjusting XRP sales and following legal guidance were deemed misleading by the filing, according to the document. The filing further argued that Ripple had misunderstood the judicial orders and failed to fully comprehend their requirements for compliance.

As a crypto investor, I’ve been following the legal battle between Ripple and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) closely. Regarding Ripple’s arguments that XRP sales outside the U.S. and to accredited investors were not subject to SEC regulations, the commission did not find these defenses convincing during the summary judgment phase. In simpler terms, the SEC didn’t buy Ripple’s excuses.

Additionally, the commission took issue with Ripple’s proposed modifications to the contracts for on-demand liquidity sales. They noted that these amended contracts were still deficient in terms of required limitations, implying that they still posed potential legal hazards.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) contends that while Ripple has given reassurances and hasn’t violated securities laws recently, there is still a risk of future breaches. To mitigate this risk, the SEC believes it necessary to issue injunctions requiring Ripple to adhere to securities regulations moving forward.

Within the crypto community, Ripple’s top lawyer, Stuart Alderoty, voiced criticism towards the agency’s controversial response.

As a seasoned crypto investor, I find it intriguing that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is taking such unusual steps in regulating the crypto sector. Other financial regulatory bodies around the world have either established or are in the process of creating clear frameworks for the crypto industry. It’s perplexing why the SEC seems to be approaching this matter in a more enigmatic way.

For financial regulators outside the United States who have put in great effort to create extensive crypto licensing systems, it’s important to understand that the SEC holds a dismissive view towards your efforts, regarding them as similar to issuing fishing permits rather than genuine authorizations.

On April 23rd, Ripple contested the SEC’s imposition of a $1.95 billion penalty over institutional XRP sales in court. The securities regulator proposed penalties amounting to $876 million for disgorgement, $198 million for prejudgment interest, and an additional civil penalty of $876 million.

However, Ripple has claimed that the civil fine cannot exceed $10 million.

Read More

2024-05-08 13:48