Lawyer Jamie Hogan, who is pursuing the Ripple case, has been informed lately. The SEC’s point of attack and Ripple’s defense logic have become clear.
# SEC, Garlinghouse’s horsetail catch
The SEC used the precision method. According to Attorney Hogan, I briefly stated the SEC position for about three minutes. In 2013 and 2015, XRP sales led by defendants increased. In particular, he emphasized what Garlinghaus said, “I will be holding XRP for a long time.”
The defendants were talking about XRP to sound like stock in Ripple.
The KIK coin, which is most similar to the Ripple lawsuit, has not even been mentioned. This is a case where Kick, a messenger service in Canada, was accused by the SEC after conducting an unauthorized ICO in 2017. In October last year, Kick filed a $5 million fine to close the case.
# Ripple lawyer, there was no problem in 2019
Ripple’s lawyers used some of the exchanges’ inquiries to the SEC in 2019 as a new defense card. That means the exchanges asked the SEC questions. “Can we buy and sell XRP? Can’t I do it because it’s a stock? Please teach me.”
The SEC didn’t say anything about it. They didn’t say, “Don’t sell it because it’s a stock,” or “You can sell it.” “The exchanges that dealt with the SEC have concluded that XRP trading is not banned, but in fact allowed,” says Ripple Labs legal advisor Stuart Aldetori.
It is allowed in 2019 and litigation in December 2020, and what has changed in the meantime.
# No Action Letter
There is a No Action Letter. Ask the administrative agency. How do I do this, can I? Then the official in charge writes a letter. It’s about not to enforce law or to take regulatory action (no action).
This seems to be the case that the Ripple lawyers said. Non-action opinions are also available in Korea. Ripple said that the SEC didn’t say anything, that is, it didn’t ban it, so it allowed it. Is it plausible?
# There is no legal binding power
Non-action opinions are not legally binding. I said’no action’ in the letter, but no one can say anything even if the administrative agency takes action later. No action in front is not legally an issue.
Let’s take an example. Law enforcement agencies are investigating whether a product is illegal. I’m doing my internal affairs. However, I have a non-action statement. “Can I do this?” like this. How do you answer. You can’t say you can, and you can’t say you shouldn’t. If you say no, the other person will think, “You’re looking for something.” The other person knows the investigation secret.
Ripple’s lawyer knows the meaning of the non-action statement, but he intentionally exaggerated it. It came out with a’no action letter’ gun to attack the SEC’s inconsistency. The SEC’s failure to answer some of the exchange’s questions gives the impression that it has not actively observed or held back.
“Why did you now even prosecute the past?” This is the point that the Ripple lawyers argued from the beginning.
In the SEC complaint, I wrote down the work instructions for Garlinghaus and Larsen. He says he has put a lot of effort into data collection and official statements. If such an investigation was in progress at the time of receipt of the non-actional opinion, it is natural that we cannot respond.
The first round is over. The SEC unveiled the price manipulation of Garlinghouse and Larsen and broke the bread. Ripple responded with a non-action statement. The fight has just begun.
–
