InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
States accuse crypto platform of offering unregistered securities
On September 26, the New York attorney general sued a cryptocurrency platform for allegedly offering unregistered securities and defrauding investors. New York was joined by state regulators from California, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Washington, and Vermont who also filed administrative actions against the platform. The states alleged that the platform failed to register as a securities and commodities broker but told investors that it was fully in compliance. According to the New York AG’s complaint, the platform promoted and sold securities through an interest-bearing virtual currency account that promised high returns for participating investors. The NY AG said that a cease-and-desist letter was sent to the platform last year, and that while the platform stated it was “working diligently to terminate all services” in the state, it continued to handle more than 5,000 accounts as of July. The complaint charges the platform with violating New York’s Martin Act and New York Executive Law § 63(12), and seeks restitution, disgorgement of profits, and a permanent injunction.
California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) said in a press release announcing its own action that it will continue to take “aggressive enforcement efforts against unregistered interest-bearing cryptocurrency accounts.” DFPI warned companies that crypto-interest accounts are securities and are therefore subject to investor protection under state law, including disclosure of associated risks.
OFAC settles with banks for multiple sanctions violations
On September 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $720,258 settlement with an indirect subsidiary of a Switzerland-based bank for allegedly processing transactions in violation of the Cuba, Ukraine-related, Iran, Sudan, and Syria sanctions programs. According to OFAC’s web notice, from April 2013 to April 2016, the bank processed 273 transactions totaling approximately $3,076,180 on behalf of individuals residing in Cuba, Crimea, Iran, Sudan, and Syria. Specifically, OFAC noted that customers in sanctioned jurisdictions were able to continue to purchase and sell securities through the U.S. financial system and to receive related dividend and interest payments until the bank took further steps to prevent such payments.
In arriving at the settlement amount of $720,258, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that bank personnel “had reason to know they were processing transactions through the U.S. financial system for individual customers located in comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions based on the underlying [know-your-customer (KYC)] data obtained by [the bank], which included address information indicating the customers’ location,” and “conferred approximately $3,076,180 in economic benefit to persons in Cuba, Crimea, Iran, Sudan, and Syria,” which caused harm to multiple sanctions programs' integrity. OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the bank cooperated with OFAC throughout the investigation, and has undertaken remedial measures intended to minimize the risk of recurrence of similar conduct.
Separately, the same day OFAC announced a $401,039 settlement with a different indirect subsidiary of the Switzerland-based bank for allegedly processing transactions in violation of the Cuba, Ukraine-related, Iran, Sudan, and Syria sanctions programs. According to OFAC’s web notice, from December 2011 until July 2016, the bank processed 426 transactions totaling approximately $1,233,967 on behalf of individuals ordinarily resident in Cuba, Iran, and Syria.
In arriving at the settlement amount of $401,039, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that bank personnel “had reason to know they were processing transactions through the U.S. financial system for individual customers located in comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions based on the underlying KYC data [the bank had] obtained,” and the bank “conferred approximately $1,233,967 in economic benefit to persons in Cuba, Iran, and Syria,” which caused harm to multiple sanctions programs' integrity. OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the bank cooperated with OFAC throughout the investigation, and has undertaken remedial measures intended to minimize the risk of recurrence of similar conduct.
CFTC orders unregistered respondents to pay $250,000 for CEA violations
On September 22, the CFTC announced a settlement with a cryptocurrency business and its founders (collectively, respondents) for allegedly violating the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), Commission regulations, and Bank Secrecy Act compliance requirements. According to the CFTC, the respondents allegedly “designed, deployed, marketed, and made solicitations concerning a blockchain-based software protocol that accepted orders for and facilitated margined and leveraged retail commodity transactions.” The protocol allowed users to leverage positions, where the value was determined by the price difference between two digital assets from the time the position was established to the time it was closed. The protocol, according to the CFTC, “purported to offer users the ability to engage in these transactions in a decentralized environment.” The CFTC found that the respondents were not registered with the CFTC and had engaged in unlawful activities that could only be lawfully performed by a registered designated contract market and other activities that could only lawfully be performed by a registered futures commission merchant (FCM). Additionally, the respondents did not comply with the Bank Secrecy Act when they failed to conduct know-your customer diligence on their customers as part of a customer identification program, as required of FCMs. The order requires the respondents to pay a $250,000 civil monetary penalty and to cease and desist from further violations of the CEA and CFTC regulations. Simultaneously, the CFTC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California charging a decentralized autonomous organization and successor to the cryptocurrency business that operated the same software protocol with violating the same laws as the respondents. The CFTC is seeking restitution, disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, trading and registration bans, and injunctions against further violations of the CEA and CFTC regulations.
The same day, CFTC Commissioner Summer K. Mersinger published a dissenting opinion, stating that though she does “not condone[s] individuals or entities blatantly violating the CEA or our rules,” we “cannot arbitrarily decide who is accountable for those violations based on an unsupported legal theory amounting to regulation by enforcement while federal and state policy is developing.” She further argued that there is no provision in the CEA that holds members of a for-profit unincorporated association personally liable for violations of the CEA or CFTC rules committed by the association based solely on their membership status.
Final judgment entered in alleged misappropriated funds suit
On September 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern Florida granted final judgment against an individual to resolve SEC allegations regarding her involvement in a company that allegedly fraudulently misappropriated funds from investors. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the SEC’s complaint claimed that the individual was employed by the company and was the wife of a chief executive officer who falsely represented to many Venezuelan-American investors that the company would use their funds to finance payday loans through the offer and sale of “safe and secured or guaranteed” promissory notes. The complaint noted that the defendant “received at least $1.2 million of [the company’s] investor funds for no apparent legitimate business purpose,” in violation of the federal securities laws or any regulation or order issued under such laws, as set forth in the Bankruptcy Code. According to the order, the defendant must pay $994,000 in disgorgement and $83,000 in interest.
SEC targets crypto developer and influencer for sale of unregistered securities
On September 19, the SEC issued a cease and desist order against a software development company and its founder (collectively, “respondents”) for the unregistered offer and sale of crypto asset securities. The SEC also announced charges against a crypto influencer involved in promoting the company. According to the SEC’s order, from April 2018 into July 2018, the respondents allegedly conducted an unregistered securities offering of crypto asset securities, which raised approximately $30 million from nearly 4,000 investors. The SEC noted that the respondents told investors that the crypto asset securities would raise in value, that the company’s management would continue to improve the company, and that they would make the tokens available on a crypto trading platform. The order also found that the crypto asset securities were not registered with the SEC and were not applicable for a registration exemption. The SEC alleged the respondents violated the offering registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933.
According to the SEC’s complaint against the influencer, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the influencer purchased $5 million worth of the company’s crypto asset securities and promoted it on social media platforms from approximately May 2018 to July 2018. He also allegedly failed to disclose that the company had agreed to provide him a 30 percent bonus on the tokens that he purchased, as consideration for his promotional efforts. Additionally, the SEC alleged that he also organized an investing pool, despite not registering the offering with the SEC. The complaint alleged violations of the offering registration provisions of Section 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act, as well as violations of Section 17(b) of the Act, and seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
Without admitting or denying the allegations, the company agreed to pay $30 million in disgorgement, $4 million in prejudgment interest, and a $500,000 civil penalty. The company also agreed to destroy its remaining tokens, request the removal of its tokens from trading platforms, and publish the SEC’s order on its website and social media channels. The founder, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, agreed to refrain from participating in offerings of crypto asset securities for a period of five years and will pay a $250,000 civil penalty.
CFTC commissioner pushes for wrongdoing admissions in settlements
On September 19, CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero called on the agency to adopt her proposed Heightened Enforcement Accountability and Transparency (HEAT) Test, which would require defendants to admit wrongdoing in CFTC enforcement settlements. Expressing “deep concerns” with the CFTC’s practice of not seeking admissions of wrongdoing when settling the majority of enforcement cases (thus resulting in a majority of settlements where the defendant “neither admits nor denies” wrongdoing), Romero stressed that she does not support allowing defendants to settle without admitting their illegal conduct. Romero’s proposed HEAT Test would, among other things, (i) require defendants to acknowledge responsibility and wrongdoing to the public in cases where heightened accountability and acceptance of responsibility are in the public interest; (ii) require more defendants to admit their wrongdoing, thus maximizing public accountability, increasing transparency of a defendant’s wrongdoing, and heightening the deterrent impact of the agency’s enforcement settlements; and (iii) assist the CFTC in reviewing cases that may call for heightened scrutiny of these factors. Romero added that the CFTC should be more willing to take cases to trial when defendants are not willing to admit wrongdoing.
SEC proposes new rules for clearing agencies
On September 14, the SEC announced a proposed rule regarding risk management practices for central counterparties in the U.S. Treasury Department market. Among other things, the proposed rule would update the membership standards required of covered clearing agencies for the Treasury market with respect to a member’s clearance and settlement of specified secondary market transactions. Specifically, the proposal would require that clearing agencies in the U.S. Treasury market adopt policies and procedures designed to require their members to submit for clearing certain specified secondary market transactions, which would include: “all repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities entered into by a member of the clearing agency; all purchase and sale transactions entered into by a member of the clearing agency that is an interdealer broker; and all purchase and sale transactions entered into between a clearing agency member and either a registered broker-dealer, a government securities broker, a government securities dealer, a hedge fund, or a particular type of leveraged account.” According to a statement by SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the proposed rule would “reduce risk across a vital part of our capital markets in both normal and stress times.” The SEC also released a Fact Sheet providing more information on the proposal. Comments are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
SEC opens crypto assets office
On September 8, SEC Chair Gary Gensler issued remarks before the Practising Law Institute to discuss cryptocurrency tokens and corresponding SEC regulation. During his remarks, Gensler stated his view that the “vast majority” of cryptocurrency tokens on the market are securities that are subject to SEC regulation. As a result, investors in cryptocurrencies “deserve disclosure to help them sort between the investments that they think will flourish and those that they think will flounder,” and that the law requires such protections. Gensler, also addressed stablecoins, which he also concluded raised significant policy issues. Gensler pointed out that depending on their attributes, stablecoins “may be shares of a money market fund or another kind of security,” and therefore require registration and deserve investor protections. Finally, addressing crypto intermediaries, Gensler noted that they are either engaging “in the business of effecting transactions in crypto security tokens for the account of others, which makes them brokers, or engage in the business of buying and selling crypto security tokens for their own account, which makes them dealers.” He warned that because crypto intermediaries often commingle other functions with a market, investors are inherently exposed to conflicts of interest and risks. To address this, Gensler noted that he encouraged SEC staff to collaborate “with intermediaries to ensure they register each of their functions—exchange, broker-dealer, custodial functions, and the like—which could result in disaggregating their functions into separate legal entities to mitigate conflicts of interest and enhance investor protection.” Gensler noted that legislation should be crafted in a way that maintains the SEC’s oversight of crypto security tokens, and added that these kind of assets make up most of the digital assets that are currently traded.
The same week, the SEC announced it is establishing an Office of Crypto Assets and an Office of Industrial Applications and Services to the Division of Corporation Finance’s Disclosure Review Program (DRP), which “has long had offices to review company filings by issuers.” According to the SEC, the offices will join the seven existing offices that provide focused review of issuer filings to continue the SEC’s efforts in promoting capital formation and protecting investors. The Office of Crypto Assets will permit “the DRP to better focus its resources and expertise to address the unique and evolving filing review issues related to crypto assets.”
SEC warns Chinese companies against switching auditors to avoid compliance
On September 6, SEC acting Chief Accountant Paul Munter issued a warning to Chinese companies that they may face enforcement actions if they switch auditing firms to remain listed in the U.S. that do not follow applicable standards. Munter pointed to instances of foreign issuers, especially those located in China or Hong Kong, “changing their lead auditor from a local registered public accounting firm to a registered public accounting firm located either in the U.S. or elsewhere, generally within the same network.” According to Munter, these types of arrangements create “special challenges that raise questions about whether the newly engaged registered public accounting firms—whether located in the U.S. or elsewhere—will be able to satisfy their responsibilities to serve as the lead auditor.” Munter noted that the U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and the Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China, recently signed a Statement of Protocol governing inspections and investigations of audit firms based in China or Hong Kong. He said, however, that certain issuers based in China and Hong Kong have started structuring audits with registered public accounting firms located either in the U.S. or elsewhere “to avoid the potential of consecutive PCAOB [Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act] determinations and a potential resultant trading prohibition.” Issuers and firms looking to avoid compliance could result in investigations and enforcement actions by the PCAOB, the SEC, or both.
SEC releases draft regulatory strategic plan
Recently, the SEC released its draft FY 2022-2026 strategic plan, which focuses on goals related to protecting families against fraud and misconduct, supporting a diverse and inclusive workforce, and developing a regulatory framework that keeps pace with ever-evolving markets, business models, and technologies. The SEC noted that it plans to continue to update its disclosure framework to meet investors’ demands for information related to issuers’ climate risks and cybersecurity hygiene policies to ensure informed investment decisions are made. The draft strategic plan also discussed market risks associated with cybersecurity threats and cross-border challenges, and called on the SEC to coordinate with foreign financial regulators. The SEC also stated it plans to update existing rules and approaches to better “reflect evolving technologies, business models, and capital markets,” and intends to examine strategies for addressing systemic and infrastructure risks faced by capital markets and market participants.