Great Ripple Debate to Gain Momemntum

Some believe that the decision of the US Financial Crimes Network, issued in 2015, allows classifying XRP as a tool that can not be controlled by the SEC
18 June 2018   421

Last week, a representative of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) acknowledged that bitcoin and Ethereum could not be recognized as securities because of their decentralization and would not be governed by relevant laws. However, the question of whether the XRP is a security remains open. This is reported by Bitcoinist.

Some believe that the decision of the US Financial Crimes Network (FinCEN), issued in 2015, allows classifying XRP as a tool that can not be controlled by the SEC.

@codetsunami Twitter
@codetsunami Twitter

During the trial in 2015, FinCEN accused Ripple Labs of violating the banking secrecy law, stating that the startup acted as a financial services company without registration with FinCEN. In addition, Ripple at that time did not use the proper practices to prevent money laundering.

Subsequently, the conflict was resolved, the criminal prosecution was terminated, and Ripple was fined $ 450,000. More importantly, the sale of XRP was allowed. Ripple Labs also made the necessary changes to its own protocol to ensure transparency of transactions. Prosecutor Melinda Haag, commenting on this case, said that she hopes that Ripple will set a standard for future investment proposals in the field of digital currencies.

FinCEN already signed an agreement with Ripple Inc. allowing them to continue their XRP sales. If XRP is an unlicensed security then FinCEN now has to explain why they signed an agreement allowing the sale of said unlicensed securities. Never going to happen. XRP isn't a security. These are the agreed facts of the settlement where FinCEN agrees with prejudice that XRP is a currency and therefore not a security. This debate is over.

Richard Holland at Twitter

Not everyone agrees that FinCEN's decision will prevent the SEC from recognizing XRP as a security, but the existence of a precedent is undoubtedly an important factor in regulation.

Court to Refuse to Return XRP Case to the Lower Instance

The case by XRP investor alleged that Ripple used dishonest and illegal tactics to control the price of XRP
13 August 2018   138

The Court of the Northern District of California rejected the claim to return the lawsuit against Ripple Labs to a lower court initially formed by investor Ryan Coffey in the San Francisco court on May 3, 2018. Coffey wanted the trial to continue in lower courts in California and not be carried out by federal courts, Bitcoinist reports.

With his suit, Coffey claims to recover the losses he incurred as a result of investing in XRP. He claims that Ripple is manipulating the XRP course with unreasonable statements about the future price of the crypto currency, while violating California Corporate Law and "hiding the role of the security."

He also accuses Ripple CEO Bred Garlinghouse of misleading investors with statements aimed at promoting and enhancing the market rate of XRP. The plaintiff believes that XRP is not a fully decentralized crypto currency, which leads to the conclusion that Ripple may violate securities laws by distributing it.

Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

Court's Statement

Meanwhile, two lawsuits against Ripple have already been transferred to federal courts in the United States. One of them was issued by a group of investors in late May. Its organizers also claim that they lost money, because they invested them in XRP under the influence of the company's statements, and assume that it can distribute unregistered securities. A third lawsuit with similar applications was filed in early July.