Regulation
After Months of Silence by ICOBox, the SEC Seeks ‘Default Judgement’ and ‘Permanent Enjoinment’
No Response
Beginning roughly 4 months ago, the SEC set their sights on ICOBox, and actions taken by the company and its founder throughout 2017. The SEC states,
“ICOBox, an incubator for digital asset startups, was founded in mid-2017 by Evdokimov, its CEO and “vision director”. To raise funds, defendants sold approximately $14.6 million worth of securities in the form of digital assets called “ICOS” tokens. Between August 9, 2017 and September 15, 2017, defendants sold ICOS tokens to over 2,000 investors, in the United States and globally…By not registering the offering with the SEC, defendants violated the securities laws’ registration requirements”
Unfortunately, despite being made aware of the various charges laid against them, the SEC and Courts have been met with nothing but silence.
Default Judgement
The aforementioned lack of response has led to the recent developments, to be discussed here today. By failing to respond to the SEC’s filing, in September of 2019, ICOBox and its Founder, Nikolay Evdokimov, have essentially forced their hand.
Backed into a corner by the silence demonstrated by ICOBox, the SEC has filed for a ‘default judgment’ on their accusations of alleged securities violations. Simply put, a ‘default judgement’ refers to a ruling put forth by a Judge, when presented with a case where the defendants remain absent from the proceedings without valid reasoning.
While there existed the possibility of defending their actions, should a default judgement be awarded, ICOBox essentially forfeits this right.
Permanent Enjoinment
While a default judgement is being sought, the SEC has not stopped there. In their recent filing to the courts, the SEC attempts to build a case, which demonstrates the intimate nature between ICOBox and its founder, Nikolay Evdokimov.
The SEC hopes to show that Evdokimov was, not only the face of the company both internally and externally, but that he had a direct hand in the actions undertaken by ICOBox.
In doing so, the SEC hopes for the court to award a ‘permanent enjoinment’ of, both, the company and its founder. A ‘permanent enjoinment’ refers to a court enforced prohibition of certain activities imposed upon specific entities – in this case, ICOBox and Evdokimov.
Past Actions
When this saga first began, in September of 2019, we reported on the initial steps taken by the SEC. The allegations raised by the regulatory body, at that time, are only now coming to an end, as they look to close out the case and move on.
SEC Zeroes in on ICOBox Activity, Filing Multiple Charges
Requests of the Court
In their filing, the SEC elaborates on the various infractions committed by the company and its founder. They proceed to list various suggested/requested actions to be taken by the court against the defendants. The following are a few examples of their requests.
- ICOBox and Evdokimov should be permanently enjoined
- The Court should order joint and several disgorgement with prejudgment interest
- The Court should order second tier penalties against Evdokimov
- Default Judgement Should be Entered Without Delay
ICOBox
Launched in 2017, ICOBox was a service provider for companies looking to host token based capital generation events, such as ICOs and STOs. Since their inception, ICOBox has helped its clients raise over $650M, in addition to raising over $14M in funds through their very own ICO.
Company operations were overseen by Founder, and CEO, Nikolay Evdokimov.
In Other News
While every case surrounding illegal activity brought forth by the SEC is an important one, there are two, in particular, that have found themselves creating headlines in recent months. These would be the situations developing around, both, Ripple and Telegram. Each of these companies have been accused of actions violating existing securities laws. On various occasions we have covered these events as they develop. To learn more about these on-going cases, make sure to peruse the following articles.
Ripple XRP Under Increased Scrutiny as a Security
Telegram Wins Court Battle but Abandons ‘TON’ Blockchain
While the SEC holds a huge amount of influence and power, they do not operate without oversight, themselves. This was on full display on Monday, as the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new ruling on SEC authority surrounding disgorgement.
Essentially, it was ruled that, while the SEC will retain the ability to seek disgorgement from offending parties, it will be limited to their profits. This means that if a company raises $50M through illegal means, the SEC can only seek to retrieve funds up to the $50M minus any genuine operating costs.
The purpose for this limit is a simple one – disgorgement is permitted as a remedial, rather than punitive, action. If the SEC were to seek funds exceeding what was raised, it would no longer represent a retrieval of funds, but a punishment for their actions.
Furthermore, the ruling indicates that funds, retrieved through these means, are to be used as compensation for victims that have lost money.
Disgorgement
For those unfamiliar with disgorgement, it refers to the repayment of funds received/generated by parties which violated existing laws.
In recent years, disgorgement has been a commonly used method of the SEC, as made evident in various cases stemming from the 2017 ICO boom.
Commentary
For those interested, the entirety of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling can be found HERE. While there are various intricacies involved, the court’s decision can be broadly summarized by their statement, as follows.
“The Court holds today that a disgorgement award that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable relief permissible under §78u(d)(5).”
Recent Examples
As aforementioned, the SEC has turned to disgorgement on various occasions, as of late. The following articles are a few examples of it being used in crypto based cases.
After Months of Silence by ICOBox, the SEC Seeks ‘Default Judgement’ and ‘Permanent Enjoinment’
SEC Levies Various Charges against ‘Teshuater’
Veritaseum Hit with $8 Million in SEC Fines
SEC
Based in the United States, the SEC is a government run regulatory body. This outfit is tasked with fostering safe, and transparent, markets surrounding securities. This entails both the creation, and enforcement, of laws surrounding the sector.
SEC Chairman, Jay Clayton, currently oversees operations.
In Other News
While Jay Clayton may still be in charge at the SEC, his time at the helm may soon be coming to a close. We recently touched on a tricky situation, currently evolving, which would see Clayton depart the SEC for a position as an Attorney General in Southern New York.
SEC Chairman Jay Clayton Moving On?
Caught in the Middle
Jay Clayton, Chairman of the SEC, has found himself caught in the middle of a tricky situation. The story goes like this:
On June 19th, U.S. Attorney General, William Barr, announced the Trump administration’s intent to name Jay Clayton the new U.S. Attorney for Southern New York.
This announcement soon became a major point of contention, as Geoffrey Berman (the current U.S. Attorney for Southern New York) had refused to abandon his post. This stance was changed, however, when assured that his departure would not derail current investigations.
Replacing Geoffrey Berman for the interim is Deputy U.S. Attorney, Audrey Strauss.
Burnt Bridges?
While pure speculation at this point, many believe that these actions were taken due to ‘burnt bridges’ between Berman and the Trump Administration. More specifically, Berman was/is at the helm of various corruption inquiries into associates of the POTUS.
The situation has seen various senators weigh-in on the situation. Notably, Senator Chuck Schumer believes an immediate investigation should be launched into the situation. Furthermore, he had strong words for Clayton, himself, stating,
“Jay Clayton can allow himself to be used in the brazen Trump-Barr scheme to interfere in investigations by the U.S. Attorney for SDNY, or he can stand up to this corruption, withdraw his name from consideration, and save his own reputation from overnight ruin.”
Back to Roots
If this move were to happen, it would not necessarily mark a return to his roots. Prior to his tenure at the SEC, Jay Clayton was a seasoned corporate lawyer, with decades of experience. What he lacks, however, is experience as a prosecutor – typically a prerequisite for Attorneys Generals.
It’s Complex
While his duties stretched far beyond regulating the burgeoning blockchain sector, Clayton developed a complex relationship with the community through his time at the SEC, thus far.
Clayton has many detractors from the crypto community, as he has had a hand in the denial of many Bitcoin ETF applications.
At the end of the day, however, the world of crypto remains rife with scams,y. Despite having massive potential, Clayton has, for the most part, made sound decisions in regulating the growth of crypto base endeavours.
Be Careful what you Wish For
While Clayton may not be pro-crypto, there are many examples throughout his tenure of openness towards these young markets.
Those excited to see his potential exit should be wary, as his successor may very well adopt a strong anti-crypto sentiment – something which could prove to be very harmful for a sector still in its infancy.
A Short Run
If opting to leave his post at the SEC, Clayton will have completed a roughly 3 year stint at its head. So far, no word has been given on a possible successor as the Chairman of SEC.
For decades, the position of Chairman at the SEC has been a revolving door. The last individual to serve longer than 4 years was Arthur Levitt, during the Clinton Administration.
CFTC
Word of Clayton’s potential replacement comes 1 year after the CFTC saw their very own chairman, J. Christopher Giancarlo, step down. During their time spent at the helm of their respective organizations, both, Clayton and Giancarlo, were vocal on their approach towards blockchain. While Clayton has remained more conservative, to this date, Giancarlo was viewed as more progressive and welcoming to change.
Over a year has passed since the demise of popular Canadian exchange, QuadrigaCX. Despite this length of time, new findings are still being released surrounding the peculiar chain of events that saw $215 million go missing – a total representing the holdings of over 75,000 clients.
The Good
While the actions of Gerald Cotten and QuadrigaCX are, without doubt, a blight on the cryptocurrency industry, it is important to remember the old adage ‘do not paint with a broad brush’.
The OSC has, thankfully, recognized this, and taken the time to ensure readers that they are not condemning the sector as a whole, in their report.
“The misconduct we uncovered in relation to Quadriga is limited to Quadriga and should not be understood as applying to the crypto asset platform industry as a whole. Properly conducted, crypto asset trading is a legitimate and important component of our capital markets. We remain committed to working with this industry to foster innovation. Financial innovation has always been critical to the health of our economy and the competitiveness of our capital markets.”
The Bad
Now we move on to the bad. After a thorough investigation, the OSC has determined that QuadrigaCX operated, essentially, as a Ponzi scheme underneath a ‘layer of modern tech’. This Ponzi scheme is believed to be orchestrated by the late founder of QuadrigaCX, Gerald Cotten.
Furthermore, due to the custody model utilized by the exchange, the OSC believes QuadrigaCX to have been in consistent violation of securities laws.
“…whereby Quadriga retained custody, control and possession of its clients’ crypto assets and only delivered assets to clients following a withdrawal request—meant that clients’ entitlements to the crypto assets held by Quadriga constituted securities or derivatives.”
To this day, many of those affected by the debacle caused by Cotten have remained hopeful that the lost keys to his crypto wallets would be found. This was due to a belief that these wallets contained much of the missing funds. Unfortunately, the OSC has indicated that this is a fallacy. Rather, the vast majority of missing funds were due to Cotten’s illegal trading activity.
“It has been widely speculated that the bulk of investor losses resulted from crypto assets becoming lost or inaccessible as a result of Cotten’s death. In our assessment, this was not the case. The evidence demonstrates that most of the $169 million asset shortfall resulted from Cotten’s fraudulent conduct, which took several forms.”
If that wasn’t bad enough, the OSC concedes that, due to the circumstances (QuadrigaCX bankruptcy, and Cotten’s death), there exists very little room for recourse.
Financial Breakdown
In their report, the OSC notes that roughly $215 million is owed to QuadrigaCX customers. They provide the following breakdown, shedding light on where the money has gone.
- $115 million
- Lost by Gerald Cotten through illegal trades on QuadrigaCX
- $46 million
- Recovered funds, now in the possession of a trustee
- $28 million
- Lost by Gerald Cotten through illegal trades on external exchanges
- $23 million
- Miscellaneous losses yet to be accounted for
- $2 million
- Funds stolen by Gerald Cotten to fund his lifestyle
- $1 million
- Operational losses
Whether through misappropriation, or illegal trades, the late Gerald Cotten is believed to be directly responsible for roughly $145 million lost in client funds.
Words of Warning
Throughout their report, the OSC doesn’t mince words when addressing companies still operating in the blockchain industry – Contact the OSC to see if registration is required under current laws.
They explicitly note, on multiple occasions, that securities laws apply in many instances, even when the traded assets are not securities. The deciding factor comes down to how these assets are handled by exchanges.
“A platform would generally not be subject to securities legislation if the underlying crypto asset being traded is not a security or derivative, and there is immediate delivery of a crypto asset to the client after a transaction…In contrast, if a platform retains possession and control of the crypto assets being traded on the platform, securities law may apply.”
While this distinction may be small, it is an important one. The OSC is imploring Canadian exchanges to reach out and determine where they fall within regulatory guidelines.
“Platform operators should be aware that, depending on their business model, they may have to register with the OSC and they should take appropriate steps to comply with Ontario securities laws…Platforms should review their operations to ensure that they have procedures in place to manage risks to clients and that they are accurately disclosing key information about their operations to clients.”
OSC
The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), is a regulatory body, tasked with ensuring fair and transparent markets. This is done through the creation, and enforcement, of laws surrounding securities in the province of Ontario.
CEO, Grant Vingoe, currently oversees company operations.