As an analyst with over two decades of experience in financial markets, I find myself closely following the ongoing legal battle between the SEC and Kraken, a cryptocurrency exchange. The SEC’s recent move to dismiss three defenses presented by Kraken in this lawsuit is a pivotal moment that could set a precedent for the regulation of digital assets.
In simpler terms, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has asked a federal court to throw out three arguments put forward by the digital currency trading platform, Kraken, in a legal dispute over accusations of breaking securities laws.
The SEC’s filing dated November 5th contests Kraken’s claim that it’s unclear under current law which digital assets should be classified as securities.
In a lawsuit filed in November 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Kraken with running an unlicensed securities trading platform, acting as an unregistered broker, and failing to register as a clearing agency.
As per the SEC, Kraken’s platform was reportedly used for the trade of unregistered crypto securities, leading to substantial income for the exchange.
In August, Kraken attempted to throw out the legal case, but the court decided in favor of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), enabling the trial to move forward.
SEC’s dismissal of three defenses
Regarding Kraken’s recent defensive strategies, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed that the “major questions doctrine” invoked by Kraken should not stand. This doctrine suggests that regulatory bodies need explicit authorization from Congress to take substantial regulatory actions.
Kraken argues that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) does not have clear, explicit jurisdiction over the regulation of digital assets as securities. Furthermore, they contend that the term “investment contract,” which is used to classify an asset as a security, lacks specificity in this context.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) dismissed these assertions, arguing that the current securities laws are neither unclear nor ambiguous. Moreover, they suggested that Kraken had been adequately informed about the actions that would be considered a violation of securities regulations.
As a researcher, I’d rephrase it like this: I found that the SEC contested Kraken’s argument that they were not adequately informed about their operations violating securities laws, which they termed as their ‘notice defense.’ The commission deemed this defense legally unsound, stating that it merely prolongs the case by requiring extensive, off-topic evidence rather than focusing on the primary issues at hand.
According to its report, the SEC cautioned that allowing Kraken’s defenses might result in an overabundance of and irrelevant document requests, making the legal proceedings more intricate and prolonged. The commission contended that discarding these defenses would simplify the case and avoid unnecessary consumption of judicial resources.
Read More
- Ludus promo codes (April 2025)
- Cookie Run Kingdom: Shadow Milk Cookie Toppings and Beascuits guide
- ZEREBRO PREDICTION. ZEREBRO cryptocurrency
- Grimguard Tactics tier list – Ranking the main classes
- DEEP PREDICTION. DEEP cryptocurrency
- Seven Deadly Sins Idle tier list and a reroll guide
- Maiden Academy tier list
- The Entire Hazbin Hotel Season 2 Leaks Explained
- Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Converse Introduce the SHAI 001
- Why ‘The Old Guard 2’ Release Date Keeps Being Postponed
2024-11-07 20:03