Telegram Banned Investors From US and EU Sanctions List

Telegram Open Network in the closed rounds of the ICO refuses to investors who fall under international sanctions
15 March 2018   2164

Persons who fall into any sanctions lists of the United States, Britain, the European Union and the UN Security Council will not be able to take part in any round of the Telegram ICO. As reported by RBK, this is stated in the standard form of the contract for the purchase of Gram between the registered in the British Virgin Islands Telegram Group Inc. and the investor.

The ban also applies to the next of kin of such persons - children, spouses, parents, siblings. In addition, the ICO is prohibited from participating in any citizen who is resident or residing in the territory in respect of which sanctions are common - at the time of writing the agreement they are considered to be Crimea, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria.

The document notes that all potential TON investors must undergo the KYC procedure adopted in the financial markets to identify clients and protect them from criminal activities. Within KYC, an individual is provided with such documents as a notarized copy of the passport, proof of residence, a recommendation from the bank, etc.

Separately in the standard agreement between Telegram Group Inc. and the investor states that the buyer of the tokens is not entitled to use them to violate the sanctions regime or money laundering, as well as terrorist financing.

Any illegal use of the Gram cryptocurrency by unscrupulous participants may violate the normative acts adopted in the UK, the US and other countries aimed at combating the financing of terrorism and money laundering. This can seriously affect the global reputation of TON Blockchain.
 

TON ICO Document

However, the documents don't say whether TON itself will track suspicious transactions. 

US Crypto Companies to Support TON in Case With SEC

The Blockchain Association said Telegram taken sufficient measures to ensure that the Gram token offer met SEC requirements
23 January 2020   114

The Blockchain Association, which combines companies such as Coinbase, Circle, 0x and Ripple, issued an expert opinion as part of the ongoing proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with Telegram.

Previously, the Digital Commerce Chamber launched a similar initiative. The blockchain association, however, was more straightforward and stated that Telegram had taken sufficient measures to ensure that the Gram token offer met SEC requirements. According to members of the organization, the actions of the SEC can damage not only Telegram, but the market as a whole.

The Court should not block a long-planned, highly anticipated product launch by interfering with a contract between sophisticated private parties. Doing so would needlessly harm the investors that securities laws were designed to protect.

 

The Blockchain Association

The Blockchain Association notes that for many years it has not been possible for SEC to obtain clear and unambiguous guidance for conducting activities in the cryptocurrency space, while the claims of the regulator make the current situation even more ambiguous. 

The SEC’s lawsuit also raises novel questions regarding whether companies are forbidden from raising funds from sophisticated U.S. investors, under well-established regulatory provisions, to build blockchain networks.

 

The Blockchain Association

They cite examples of startups TurnKey Jet and Pocketful of Quarters, in respect of which the regulator recommended not to apply legal measures, adding that such litigations inevitably involve high costs and do not guarantee industry participants that they will not be prosecuted in the future.

Telegram discussed its plans with SEC staff for a year and a half, provided copious information and responded to limited feedback by adjusting the design of its transaction. Yet, at the end, the SEC has sued, and the SEC’s briefs thus far say nothing about the substance of those discussions. 

 

The Blockchain Association

In conclusion, the group asks the court to “reject the SEC’s arguments that the not-yet-in-existence Grams were securities at the time of the Purchase Agreements.”