Skip to content

Enforcement Highlights

  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Cookie Policy
Enforcement
Highlights

Covering SEC, CFTC, FINRA, PCAOB, States, Exchanges, & FCA Enforcement Activities

Is SEC “Regulation by Enforcement” for the Digital Asset Industry Next Up?

Cryptocurrencies are one of the fastest growing asset types worldwide. Cryptocurrencies, as an asset class, total over $1.5 trillion in market capitalization. With the rapid growth of this asset type, SEC Chair Gary Gensler shared his views for the SEC in this area. At a recent conference, Chair Gensler continued to broadly characterize most digital assets as “investment contracts,” placing cryptocurrencies within the scope of the SEC’s enforcement powers. During his remarks at the Aspen Security Forum on August 3, Chair Gensler stated, “many of these tokens are offered and sold as securities” because they meet the definition of an “investment contract.” As established by the U.S. Supreme Court under the “Howey Test”, investment contracts are defined as agreements in which a person invests money in a common enterprise, expecting profits based on the efforts of others. Investment vehicles that satisfy the “Howey Test” definition for investment contracts are securities that fall within the jurisdiction of the SEC.

Chair Gensler further stated that the cryptocurrency area currently “lacks the typical investor protection guardrails” and that he has asked Congress for additional authority to “prevent transactions, products and platforms from falling between regulatory cracks.” Chair Gensler’s views appear supported by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement having brought 75 enforcement actions over the last decade. However, others are not convinced that the SEC has clearly defined jurisdiction.

Tension Points: Should Securities Laws Apply to Digital Assets?

Some commentators in the field have criticized the SEC’s lack of clarity about the application of securities laws to the universe of digital assets. Commissioner Hester Peirce has stated that she and Chair Gensler “have a disagreement on the clarity point” as to when offerings of digital assets will be deemed securities offerings. Others, including Commissioner Brian Quintenz of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), have pushed back against Chair Gensler’s claims regarding the SEC’s enforcement powers. In a tweet following Chair Gensler’s remarks, Commissioner Quintenz wrote, “[j]ust so we are all clear here, the SEC has no authority over pure commodities or their trading venues, whether those commodities are wheat, gold, oil, … or #crypto assets.” Most notably, Bitcoin, currently the largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, has already been deemed subject to the CFTC’s oversight as a commodity for purposes of fraudulent activity.

Moving Forward: To Be or Not to Be [A Commodity That Is].

Moving forward, the question will be which characteristics will determine whether a digital asset is regulated as a security or as a commodity. Chair Gensler’s comment that “no single crypto asset … broadly fulfills all the functions of money” increases the uncertainties regarding what it takes, from the SEC’s perspective, for a token to fall outside of the SEC’s oversight authority. Chair Gensler’s further declaration that the SEC “[has] taken and will continue to take our authorities as far as they go,” makes clear the SEC’s intention to act as a “watchdog” over the digital asset space. With the SEC’s recent acknowledged use of regulation by enforcement in other areas, we may start to see additional efforts by SEC Enforcement to further expand its efforts in this area.

Practice Points:

  • Watch for the upcoming result of SEC v. Ripple Labs, INC.

 

Subscribe and Receive Alerts to New Articles

SUBSCRIBE
August 19, 2021
Written by: Jeffrey Blumberg and Sophie Gotlieb
Category: Compliance and Supervision, Futures and Derivatives, Hedge Funds and Private Equity, Insider and Manipulative Trading, Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Robinhood’s $70 Million FINRA Penalty: Growing Pains, Reliance on Technology and Push to Offer New Products
Next Next post: The SEC’s Renewed Focus on Accounting Misconduct

Subscribe to Email Alerts

Categories

  • Compliance and Supervision
  • Futures and Derivatives
  • Hedge Funds and Private Equity
  • Insider and Manipulative Trading
  • Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers
  • Municipal Bond Offerings
  • Public Companies, Accounting, and Auditing

©2023 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Lawyer Advertising.

  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Cookie Policy
We use cookies to improve your experience with our website. By browsing our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies. For more information about how we use cookies, please review our privacy policy and cookie policy. OK
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT