Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • SEC: No fine for self-reported unregistered ICO

    Securities

    On February 20, the SEC announced a cease-and-desist order with a cybersecurity startup for conducting an unregistered Initial Coin Offering (ICO), which the company self-reported. According to the order, in late 2017, the startup conducted an unregistered ICO, which raised approximately $12.7 million in digital assets. The money was used to finance the startup’s plan to “develop[] a network in which participants could rent spare bandwidth and storage space on their computers and servers to others for use in defense against certain types of cyberattacks.” The SEC noted that the tokens offered and sold were considered securities because a purchaser would have a reasonable expectation of obtaining a future profit from the investment. The startup did not register the ICO nor did it qualify for an exemption to the registration requirements. The SEC did not impose a monetary penalty because, according to the order, in the summer of 2018 the startup self-reported the unregistered ICO and offered to take prompt remedial actions. The order requires the startup to return the funds to investors who purchased the tokens and register the tokens as securities.

    Securities Initial Coin Offerings Virtual Currency Settlement Enforcement

    Share page with AddThis
  • Virtual currency is not considered “money” in Pennsylvania; platforms do not need money transmitter license

    State Issues

    The Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities recently published guidance stating that virtual currency, including “Bitcoin,” is not considered “money” under the state’s Money Transmitter Act (MTA). According to the guidance, only “fiat currency,” or currency issued by the U.S. government is considered “money” under the MTA and that to transmit money under the MTA, (i) fiat currency must be transferred with or on behalf of an individual to a third party; and (ii) the money transmitter must charge a fee for the transmission. Because virtual currency trading platforms (along with virtual currency kiosks, ATMs, and vending machines) never directly handle fiat currency and there is no transfer of money from a user to a third party, they are not money transmitters under the MTA and therefore do not need a license in order to operate in the state.

    State Issues Virtual Currency Licensing Money Service / Money Transmitters

    Share page with AddThis
  • User’s lawsuit against online digital currency exchange must be arbitrated

    Courts

    On January 24, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the motion of an online digital currency exchange to compel arbitration in connection with a lawsuit alleging that the exchange negligently failed to prevent a scam. According to the opinion, the plaintiff contacted what he thought was the online exchange’s customer support to inquire about a pending transaction, but actually spoke with a hacker who used the personal information he disclosed to steal more than $200,000 worth of digital currency from his account. In his complaint, the plaintiff claimed that “stronger security measures” by the exchange would have prevented the scam. The exchange moved to compel arbitration, citing the arbitration agreement in the user agreement. In order to establish an account with the exchange, the user is required to check a box which states, “I certify that I am 18 years of age or older, and I agree to the User Agreement and Privacy Policy,” both of which are hyperlinked in the statement. The court found that this “express acceptance” required by the exchange was a clear signal that a user account would be subject to terms and conditions and that the plaintiff had inquiry notice of those terms. The court concluded that the plaintiff also assented to the terms based on witness testimony from the exchange’s “dispute analyst,” who testified that an account cannot be created unless the user checks the box agreeing to the user agreement, and a log of the plaintiff’s visit to the site contains the note “accepted_user_ agreement.” Accordingly, the court granted the exchange’s motion to compel arbitration.

    Courts Virtual Currency Arbitration

    Share page with AddThis
  • New York governor creates task force to study digital currency industry

    State Issues

    On December 21, the New York governor signed A08783, which creates a digital currency task force to conduct a comprehensive review related to the regulation of cryptocurrencies in the state. The act requires the task force to issue a report by December 15, 2020, with recommendations to “increase transparency and security, enhance consumer protections, and to address the long-term impact related to the use of cryptocurrency.” The report will also contain a review of laws and regulations on digital currency, including those used by other states, the federal government, and foreign countries.

    State Issues State Legislation Virtual Currency Cryptocurrency Blockchain

    Share page with AddThis
  • District Court rejects dismissal bid, determining plaintiff sufficiently alleged ICO tokens were unregistered stock

    Courts

    On December 10, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action, finding the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that a company’s sale of unregistered cryptocurrency tokens were “investment contracts” under securities law. According to the opinion, the plaintiff filed the proposed class action against the company alleging it sold unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Act after purchasing $25,000 worth of tokens during the company’s initial coin offering (ICO). The company moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the tokens were not securities subject to the registration requirements of the Act. The court applied the three-prong “investment contract” test from SEC v. W.J. Howey Co.—“the three requirements for establishing an investment contract are: (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with profits to come solely from the efforts of others”—and determined the token sales met the requirements. Focusing on the second and third prongs, because the company acknowledged the first was satisfied, the court concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the existence of a common enterprise by showing a “horizontal commonality” from the pooling of the contributions used to develop and maintain the company’s tasking platform. As for the third prong, the court determined the investors had an expectation of profit rather than simply a means to use the tasking platform, as demonstrated by the company’s marketing of the ICO as a “‘unique investment opportunity’ that would ‘generate better financial returns[.]’”

    Courts Securities Initial Coin Offerings Virtual Currency Fintech

    Share page with AddThis
  • OFAC announces cyber-related designations, releases digital-currency addresses to identify illicit actors

    Financial Crimes

    On November 28, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13694 against two Iran-based individuals for allegedly helping to facilitate the exchange of ransom payments made in Bitcoin into local currency. For the first time, OFAC also identified two digital currency addresses associated with the identified financial facilitators who are designated “for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of” ransomware attacks that threaten the “national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the [U.S.]” According to OFAC, the provided digital currency addresses should be used to assist in identifying transactions and funds to be blocked as well as investigating potential connections.

    Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker stated, “We are publishing digital-currency addresses to identify illicit actors operating in the digital-currency space. Treasury will aggressively pursue Iran and other rogue regimes attempting to exploit digital currencies and weaknesses in cyber and [anti-money laundering/countering financing of terrorism] safeguards to further their nefarious objectives.” OFAC issued a warning that persons who engage in transactions with the identified individuals “could be subject to secondary sanctions” and that “[r]egardless of whether a transaction is denominated in a digital currency or traditional fiat currency, OFAC compliance obligations are the same.” As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to the identified individuals subject to U.S. jurisdiction “or within or transiting” the U.S. are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from entering into transactions with them. OFAC also released new FAQs to provide guidance for financial institutions on digital currency.

    View here for additional InfoBytes coverage on Iranian sanctions.

    Financial Crimes Department of Treasury OFAC Virtual Currency Bitcoin Sanctions Iran

    Share page with AddThis
  • Court holds SEC has not proven pre-ICO cryptocurrency is a “security”

    Courts

    On November 27, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction against a cryptocurrency company, concluding the agency failed show the currency tokens were “securities” as defined under federal securities laws. According to the order, the SEC filed a complaint against the company in October alleging it falsely claimed its initial coin offering (ICO) was registered and approved by the SEC and other regulators, including using the agency’s seal in marketing materials. At the time of the filing, the SEC claimed the company had already raised more than $2.5 million in pre-ICO sales. The SEC moved for a preliminary injunction to freeze the company’s assets and prevent the company’s owner from buying or selling securities and other digital currency during the pendency of the case. Upon review, the court noted the SEC must establish the company previously violated federal securities laws and there is a reasonable likelihood that it will happen again. The SEC argued the allegedly fraudulent marketing materials used to raise money from 32 “test investors” violated federal securities laws, while the company argued the investors did not have an expectation to receive profits as they were working with the company on the exchange’s functionality and therefore, the currency tokens were not “securities.” The court denied the SEC’s motion, concluding that it could not determine whether the tokens were “securities” under federal law without full discovery as there were disputed issues of material facts, including what the test investors relied on in terms of marketing materials before they purchased the cryptocurrency tokens.

    Courts Cryptocurrency Virtual Currency Initial Coin Offerings SEC Preliminary Injunction

    Share page with AddThis
  • SEC announces first settlement with a digital currency exchange

    Securities

    On November 8, the SEC announced its first enforcement action settlement with a digital currency platform for allegedly operating as an unregistered national securities exchange. According to the cease-and-desist order, the founder of the digital currency exchange, who has since sold the exchange to foreign buyers, allegedly violated federal securities laws by providing an online platform for secondary market trading of digital assets, including ERC20 tokens, without registering with the Commission or operating pursuant to a registration exemption. ERC20 tokens are digital assets issued and distributed on the Ethereum Blockchain using the ERC20 protocol, which, according to the SEC, is the standard coding protocol currently used by a significant majority of issuers in initial coin offerings. The order emphasizes that 92 percent of the trades on the exchange took place after the SEC released its Report of Investigation Pursuant To Section 21(a) Of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO (the DAO Report) in July 2017, advising that non-exempt digital currency exchanges must register with the Commission. Without admitting or denying the findings, the founder agreed to pay $300,000 in disgorgement plus interest and a $75,000 penalty.

    Securities Cryptocurrency Virtual Currency SEC Settlement Fintech

    Share page with AddThis
  • NYDFS adds check cashing and virtual currency businesses to nationwide licensing system

    State Issues

    On October 1, NYDFS announced the commencement of the final phase of its initiative to manage the license application and regulation of all non-depository financial institutions operating in the state through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (NMLS). As such, NYDFS now allows financial services companies holding check casher and virtual currency business activity licenses to transition those licenses to NMLS. Additionally, companies applying for new licenses may now submit applications through NMLS. As previously covered in InfoBytes, licensed budget planners, sales finance agencies, money transmitter licensees, and mortgage providers have already made the transition to NMLS. 

    State Issues NYDFS NMLS Licensing Virtual Currency

    Share page with AddThis
  • District Court concludes a small virtual currency is a “commodity” under the Commodities Exchange Act

    Courts

    On September 26, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a virtual currency trading company’s motion to dismiss, concluding that smaller virtual currencies are commodities that may be regulated by the CFTC. In January, the CFTC bought an action alleging the company violated the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC Regulation 180.1(a) by making false or misleading statements and omitting material facts when offering the sale of their company’s virtual currency. For example, the complaint alleges that the company falsely stated that its virtual currency was backed by gold, could be used anywhere Mastercard was accepted, and was being actively traded on several currency exchanges. Moreover, while consumers who purchased the virtual currency could view their accounts, they were unable to trade it or withdraw funds from their accounts with the company. The company moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the conduct did not involve a “commodity,” specifically one that underlies a futures contract, under the CEA. In denying the motion to dismiss, the court determined that Congress intended for the CEA to cover a certain “class” of items and specific items within that class are then “dealt in.” Because the company offered a type of “virtual currency” and it is “undisputed that there is futures trading in virtual currencies (specifically involving Bitcoin),” the court held that the CFTC sufficiently alleged the company’s product is a “commodity” under the CEA. The court also rejected the company’s other arguments, determining Regulation 180.1(a) was meant to combat the fraud alleged by the CFTC, notwithstanding its use of the term “market manipulation,” and the CFTC adequately pleaded the fraudulent claim under the regulation.  

    Courts Virtual Currency CFTC Regulation Fraud Fintech

    Share page with AddThis

Pages

Upcoming Events