Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 489 posts

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#81

Post by jcranmer »

johndhi wrote: post #69
gadnuk wrote: post #40

> In one instance, the Binance chief compliance officer messaged a colleague that, “[w]e are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro.” Source: https://twitter.com/JohnReedStark/status/1665748594421297152 This is a legendary quote from the filing.

what's stupid is that quotes like this, not actual substance of what their business practices are, are the only way the SEC can establish what is and isn't a "security." there is no real truth or objective test and the SEC has offered no meaningful guidance. so they just determine this based on subjective emails the CEO sent once.

The definition of "security" is pretty objective (Howey test), but the answer it produces tends not to be liked by people in the crypto space, so they argue hard about why it's not a definition of security.

What quotes like these do is make it trivial to prove the mens rea (intent) requirements, and put a lie to claims that they didn't know it was a security or that their interpretation as not-a-security was reasonable.

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#82

Post by mgamache »

CPLX wrote: post #75
johndhi wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's stupid is that quotes like this, not actual substance of what their business practices are, are the only way the SEC can establish what is and isn't a "security." there is no real truth or objective test and the SEC has offered no meaningful guidance. so they just determine this based on subjective emails the CEO sent once.

There is like 100 years of detailed precedent and caselaw around what a security is. The crypto scam artist just don't like it.

And yet there is no clear definition offered by the SEC.

https://www.smitheilers.com/blog/coinbase-sues-securities-an...

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#83

Post by ipaddr »

CPLX wrote: post #75
johndhi wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's stupid is that quotes like this, not actual substance of what their business practices are, are the only way the SEC can establish what is and isn't a "security." there is no real truth or objective test and the SEC has offered no meaningful guidance. so they just determine this based on subjective emails the CEO sent once.

There is like 100 years of detailed precedent and caselaw around what a security is. The crypto scam artist just don't like it.

What case law do you think this falls under?

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#84

Post by lotsofpulp »

nubb wrote: post #78
Analemma_ wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to know what context could surround the sentence "we are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA" that makes it not an admission that they are operating as an unlicensed securities exchange in the USA.

sarcasm and hyperbole soon to become illegal. thanks. good work.

Does the context that it was written by the chief compliance offer in a work email make any difference? Should people be held to account for what they express at any time, or is “sarcasm” a valid cover your ass for any situation?

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#87

Post by [deleted] »

TylerE wrote: post #68
throwaw12 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is "[w]e ...." literal text from a message? when this kind of wording is used usually in english? For me typing "we" is much easier. reason I am asking is, if text was written "e are operating as fk....." then it's very easy to claim: "oh I wanted to write "they are", when talking about FTX" and blame them for everything (IANAL)

It's an editorial correction. E.g. fixing a typo to what was obviously intended, while indicating it isn't an exact quote.

[deleted]

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#88

Post by CPLX »

ipaddr wrote: post #83
CPLX wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is like 100 years of detailed precedent and caselaw around what a security is. The crypto scam artist just don't like it.

What case law do you think this falls under?

Going out on a limb here but my assumption is that the specific one probably relies on the detailed citations of law and statute contained in the 136 page complaint written and filed by government attorneys.

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#89

Post by CPLX »

mgamache wrote: post #82
CPLX wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is like 100 years of detailed precedent and caselaw around what a security is. The crypto scam artist just don't like it.

And yet there is no clear definition offered by the SEC. https://www.smitheilers.com/blog/coinbase-sues-securities-an...

https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-an...

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#90

Post by I_am_tiberius »

Not a Binance fan but in this context, and considering the SECs unwillingness of declaring when cryptocurrencies are securities or not, it's pretty clear that they go after Binance for strategic reasons. Not sure but I assume this is controlled by the Biden admin.
Post reply on HN