InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFTC settles AML violations with cryptocurrency derivatives platform
On August 10, the CFTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a consent order against several companies (defendants) charged with operating an unregistered cryptocurrency derivatives trading platform. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2020, the CFTC announced that it filed a complaint against five entities and three individuals for allegedly owning and operating an unregistered cryptocurrency derivatives platform and failing to implement required anti-money laundering procedures. The complaint alleged that the platform “illegally offer[ed] leveraged retail commodity transactions, futures, options, and swaps” on cryptocurrencies without implementing key safeguards required by the Commodity Exchange Act and several CFTC regulation compliance measures, such as know-your-customer procedures or actions designed to detect and prevent illicit activities. The CFTC also claimed that the exchange operated as an unregistered futures commission merchant and did not have CFTC approval to operate as a designated contract market or swap execution facility. In addition, the defendants are permanently “restrained, enjoined, and prohibited from directly or indirectly offering to enter into retail commodity transactions,” among other things. The order notes that the defendants engaged in remedial measures, such as developing an AML and user verification program. The companies were ordered to pay a $100 million civil monetary penalty, but up to $50 million of the penalty may be offset by payments made by, or amounts credited to, the defendants pursuant to the Assessment of Civil Money Penalty entered by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
SEC settles with company selling securities through DeFi platform
On August 6, the SEC announced a settlement with two individuals and their company for the alleged unregistered sale of over $30 million of securities using smart contracts and decentralized finance technology, and for misleading investors regarding the operations and profitability of their business. According to the SEC’s order, the company offered and sold securities in unregistered offerings through a program from February 2020 to February 2021, which used smart contracts to sell two types of digital tokens: one type that could be purchased using specified digital assets and paid 6.25 percent in interest; and the other type that purportedly provided holders certain voting rights, some excess of profits, and the ability to profit from resales in the secondary market. The SEC alleged that the company violated provisions of the Securities Act, such as Section 5(a) and 5(c), by offering and selling securities without having a registration statement filed or in effect. In addition, the company violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making materially false statements and engaging in other deceptive acts regarding business operations and profitability. The order, which the company consented to without admitting or denying the findings, imposes a civil money penalty of $125,000 to each individual and a total of $12,849,354 in disgorgement. The order also provides that the company must cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of the Exchange Act.
SEC awards $9.5 million to whistleblowers
On August 10, the SEC announced awards totaling nearly $6 million to two whistleblowers whose information and assistance led to separate successful SEC enforcement actions. According to the first redacted order, the SEC awarded a whistleblower nearly $3.5 million for voluntarily providing original information to the Commission, which expanded an existing investigation into a new geographic area and led to a successful enforcement action. The whistleblower also traveled to meet in person with staff, identified an important witness, and provided multiple supplemental submissions that assisted the SEC with the charges in the underlying enforcement action. In the second redacted order, the SEC awarded a whistleblower approximately $2.4 million for alerting the SEC to previously unknown conduct, which initiated the opening of the investigation. The whistleblower also met in person with SEC staff, provided documents, and identified potential witnesses.
Earlier on August 6, the SEC announced awards totaling more than $3.5 million to three whistleblowers whose information and assistance led to two SEC enforcement actions. According to the first redacted order, the SEC awarded a whistleblower nearly $2 million for voluntarily providing original information to the Commission, which led to a successful enforcement action. The whistleblower also provided ongoing assistance, participated in interviews, and provided information that saved staff time and resources. In the second redacted order, the SEC awarded a whistleblower approximately $1 million and a second whistleblower approximately $500,000. The SEC noted that though both whistleblowers provided valuable information, the whistleblower who received the larger award provided information and cooperation that was more impactful in the enforcement action.
The SEC has awarded approximately $956 million to 195 individuals since issuing its first award in 2012.
SEC: Offshore issuers must disclose relationships to China-based operating companies
On July 30, SEC Chair Gary Gensler issued a statement instructing staff to seek certain disclosures from China-based operating companies and offshore issuers associated with such companies before their registration statements can be declared effective. Gensler explained that the Chinese government recently provided “new guidance to and placed restrictions on China-based companies raising capital offshore, including through associated offshore shell companies.” This is relevant to U.S. investors, Gensler stated, because a number of Chinese sectors restrict companies from having foreign ownership and prohibit them from listing on exchanges outside of China.
In order to bypass these restrictions, many China-based operating companies are structured as Variable Interest Entities (VIEs), where they establish an offshore shell company in another jurisdiction, such as the Cayman Islands, to issue stock to public shareholders, Gensler said. He expressed concerns that the average U.S. investor “may not realize that they hold stock in a shell company rather than a China-based operating company,” where the investors’ “exposure” to the Chinese company is derived only through a series of contracts between the shell and the operating company, with neither the investor nor the shell company holding any equity in the Chinese company itself.
In light of the overall risks associated with the China-based VIE structure, Gensler asked staff to ensure that offshore issuers associated with China-based operating companies prominently and clearly disclose (i) that investors are buying shares of a shell company issuer; (ii) that “investors face uncertainty about future actions by the government of China that could significantly affect the operating company’s financial performance and the enforceability of the contractual arrangements”; and (iii) the financial relationship between the VIE and the issuer. In addition, for all China-based operating companies seeking to register securities with the SEC (either directly or through a shell company), Gensler asked staff to ensure these companies disclose, among other things, whether the company and the issuer received permission from Chinese authorities to be listed on U.S. exchanges, as well as the risk that an approval could be denied or rescinded. Gensler further noted that China-based operating companies may be delisted in the future if the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is unable to inspect an issuer’s public accounting firm within three years, as required by the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act.
SEC considers revision of two amendments
On August 2, the SEC announced it will review two recent amendments to its whistleblower rules adopted in September 2020 in response to concerns that they would discourage whistleblowers from coming forward. According to SEC Chair Gary Gensler, “one amendment would preclude the Commission in some instances from making an award in related enforcement actions brought by other law-enforcement and regulatory authorities if a second, alternative whistleblower award program might also apply to the action.” The second amendment, on the other hand, may be utilized by a future Commission to decrease an award due to the size of the award in absolute terms. As previously covered by InfoBytes, these amendments were designed to “provide greater transparency, efficiency and clarity, and to strengthen and bolster the program.”
SEC issues whistleblower awards totaling nearly $4 million
On August 2, the SEC announced whistleblower awards to four individuals totaling nearly $4 million for information provided in two separate enforcement actions. According to the first redacted order, the SEC awarded a whistleblower nearly $2 million for voluntarily providing original information to the Commission, which initiated an investigation. The whistleblower also provided ongoing assistance, participated in interviews, and identified key witnesses, which led to a successful enforcement action. In the same enforcement action, the SEC awarded over $150,000 to another whistleblower, whose information helped SEC staff expand its investigation. In the second redacted order, the SEC awarded approximately $1.1 million to an individual for reporting misconduct internally and notifying the SEC of the violations, in addition to more than $500,000 to another whistleblower for providing important, but not sufficiently timely, information.
The SEC has awarded approximately $946 million to 190 individuals since issuing its first award in 2012.
SEC settles with company over ETP implementation failure
On July 19, the SEC announced a settlement with a financial services company for its role in alleged compliance failures connected to volatility-linked-exchange traded products (ETPs). According to the order, the issuer of the ETP, which was designed to track short-term volatility expectations in the market as measured against derivatives of a volatility index, warned the company that it was not suitable to hold the product for extended periods of time, and that the product’s offering documents proved that the product’s value was likely to decline. The SEC alleged that the company violated the Advisers Act and Advisers Act Rule, such as Section 206(4), because the company failed to adopt reasonably designed written policies and procedures directed at ETPs and failed to implement its existing policies and procedures. The order includes allegations that the company prohibited brokerage representatives from soliciting sales of the product and placed other sales restrictions of the product, but did not place similar restrictions on some financial advisers’ use of the product in discretionary managed client accounts. The order further noted that the company allegedly adopted a concentration limit on ETPs but failed to implement a system for monitoring and enforcing that limit for five years. The order, which the company consented to without admitting or denying the findings, imposes a civil money penalty of approximately $8 million and $96,344 in disgorgement, and requires the company to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Advisers Act Rule.
SEC obtains TRO and asset freeze against investment scam
On July 19, the SEC announced that it had obtained a temporary restraining order and asset freeze to halt an ongoing fraud offering by a Las Vegas-based company and two individual defendants, including a recidivist, (collectively, “defendants”) that allegedly raised more than $12 million from nearly 300 retail investors. According to the complaint, the defendants violated several provisions of securities laws by allegedly promising investors that their money would be invested in securities, bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies based on recommendations made by an “[a]rtificial intelligence supercomputer,” which allegedly “consistently generate[d] enormous returns” and allowed the defendants to guarantee fixed returns of 20-30 percent annually with compounding interest. However, the SEC alleged that over 90 percent of the defendants’ funds came from investors, and that the defendants did not use these funds for the stated purposes. Rather, defendants transferred millions of dollars to one of the individual defendant’s personal bank accounts, paid millions of dollars to promoters who led investors to the defendants, and made “Ponzi-like” payments to other investors. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
New Jersey orders company to stop selling unregistered securities
On July 19, the New Jersey Bureau of Securities (Bureau) announced a cease and desist order against a financial services company for allegedly selling unregistered securities in the form of interest-earning cryptocurrency accounts and failing to explain to investors that the accounts were not licensed in New Jersey. According to the order, the company has been funding its lending operations and proprietary trading business since 2019 by selling interest-bearing cryptocurrency accounts that are not protected by or registered with any federal or state securities regulator. The order notes that the company “held the equivalent of $14.7 billion from the sale of these unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Law.” In addition, the order, which become effective July 22, requires the company to stop selling any unregistered security or violating any securities law. According to the Bureau, the recent action “comes amid rising concerns over the proliferation of decentralized finance platforms like [the company] that seek to reinvent traditional financial systems such as banks and brokerages for digital asset investors,” and that “[u]nlike traditional, regulated banks and brokerage firms, however, investors’ losses are not insured against or protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or Securities Investor Protection Corporation.”
FINRA to require filing of retail communications for private placement offerings
On July 15, FINRA announced amendments to Rules 5122 and 5123 to require that members file retail communications that promote or recommend private placement offerings. Rule 5122 applies to private placements of unregistered securities issued by a member or a control entity, and requires that the member or control entity provide prospective investors with a private placement memorandum (PPM), term sheet, or other offering document that reveals the intended use of the offering proceeds and expenses, among other things. Rule 5123 requires that “members file with FINRA any PPM, term sheet or other offering document, including any material amended versions thereof, used in connection with a private placement of securities within 15 calendar days of the date of first sale.” According to FINRA, the amendments require a member to file retail communications with the FINRA Corporate Financing Department “no later than the date on which the member must file the private placement offering documents under Rules 5122 and 5123.” The amendments become effective on October 1.