SEC’s Crypto Stance Slammed: Seeking Advice to Comply is Not Proof of Criminal Intent

Last Updated: August 13, 2023

• Coinbase’s Chief Legal Officer, Paul Grewal, has voiced concerns regarding the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) refusal to guide cryptocurrency companies seeking to adhere to regulatory requirements.
• XRP advocate and lawyer John Deaton agreed with Grewal’s viewpoint and criticized the SEC for what he perceives as discouraging ethical behavior.
• The SEC has interpreted seeking advice on lawful token sales as a potential violation of the Securities Act’s Section 5.

Coinbase’s Legal Chief Slams SEC

Coinbase’s Chief Legal Officer, Paul Grewal, has expressed concern over the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) refusal to provide guidance to cryptocurrency companies attempting to comply with regulatory requirements. XRP advocate and lawyer John Deaton echoed Grewal’s sentiments, expressing disapproval of the SEC’s bias against crypto businesses that discourage responsible conduct. The SEC has also interpreted seeking advice on lawful token sales as a potential violation of the Securities Act’s Section 5.

Debates Over SEC Guidance

The lack of guidance from the SEC has sparked debates among members of the crypto community and raised questions about its impact on innovation within the sector. Struggles for access to information by crypto firms have revealed an ever-evolving landscape in which entrepreneurs are operating in uncertain conditions when it comes to regulations.

Deaton Criticizes SEC Approach

John Deaton argued that Gary Gensler led-SEC is exploiting voluntary disclosures by crypto enterprises in order to take enforcement actions against them. He also criticized their interpretation that consulting legal advisors on how one can sell tokens lawfully implies an intention to break the law; instead such consultations often serve as a preventive measure against any notion of criminal intent.

Implications Of Crypto Stance

Gensler’s stance towards crypto firms could potentially be seen as discouraging good conduct, which goes against any legitimate goal or purpose of financial regulation worldwide. It would also be unfair if transparent disclosure by firms was used against them by regulatory bodies in order to insinuate shared interests among token holders, especially when such intentions were not present at all times or did not reflect reality accurately enough.

Conclusion

In conclusion, despite some criticism from industry figures like Paul Grewal and John Deaton, it remains unclear whether or not Gary Gensler led-SEC will change its approach towards providing guidance for cryptocurrency companies looking to comply with regulations without fear of repercussion anytime soon .

Author