InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
SEC accuses crypto companies of $37 million scheme
On September 30, the SEC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against two cryptocurrency companies and their principals (collectively, “defendants”) claiming that they falsely promised investors that their cryptocurrency was backed by a $10 billion gold bullion investment. According to the complaint, the SEC alleged that between May 2018 and January 2019, the defendants “made material misrepresentations and omissions to investors while they were offering and selling [a crypto asset that the companies owned and controlled] in a series of news and press releases issued to the public." The releases falsely claimed that one of the cryptocurrency companies had acquired and received title to $10 billion in gold bullion and intended to back each token that was owned and controlled by the companies issued and sold to investors with $1.00 worth of this gold. One of the companies claimed to have acquired the gold through a purchase transaction with one of the principles and his company. The defendants also misrepresented that independent accounting firms had performed an “audit” of the gold and verified its existence. In reality, the gold acquisition transaction was a sham. The SEC’s complaint alleged violations of anti-fraud and securities registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, civil penalties and officer-and-director bars against the individual defendants.
SEC files charges against crypto-asset seminar operation
On September 19, the SEC filed a complaint against a two individuals and the companies they controlled (collectively, “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for allegedly operating an on-going fraudulent and unregistered crypto-asset offering targeting Latino investors. According to the SEC, the defendants allegedly raised more than $12 million from over 5,000 investors who paid for seminars to learn how to build wealth through crypto-asset trading. However, the SEC claimed that one of the individual defendants—who founded the company and actually had no education or training in investments or crypto assets—used the seminars to solicit investors to give their money to the company and then supposedly used the funds to conduct crypto asset and foreign exchange trading. In total, the SEC alleged the individual defendants made roughly $2.7 million in Ponzi payments, diverting nearly $8 million for their own personal use. The complaint charges the defendants with violating, or aiding and abetting violations of, the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities Act. The company’s founder is also charged with violating the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants, civil penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and bars. The SEC stated in its announcement that, at the Commission’s request, the court issued a temporary restraining order to stop the offering, in addition to temporary orders freezing assets and granting additional emergency relief.
CFTC files charges against operators of unregistered digital asset exchange
On October 3, the CFTC filed a complaint against an individual and the four companies he controlled (collectively, “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for allegedly operating a digital asset exchange that offered futures transactions on a platform other than a designated contract market. The defendants are also charged with attempting to manipulate the price of the exchange’s native token. According to the CFTC, the defendants used web-based solicitation to obtain customers even though the individual defendant was aware that such participation subjected the exchange to U.S. regulation. The CFTC also claimed that, in addition to allegedly violating certain registration and regulatory requirements, the defendants attempted to artificially inflate the price of the exchange’s “native currency.” Among other things, the defendants are also accused of failing to implement an effective AML program, know-your-customer procedures, or a customer information program to verify the identifies of the customers who purchased the digital assets. The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), and seeks full restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten gain, civil penalties, permanent trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction against further CEA violations.
SEC charges celebrity with unlawfully promoting crypto security
On October 1, the SEC announced charges against a celebrity (respondent) who allegedly used her social media accountg to tout a crypto-asset security without disclosing the payment she received for the promotion. According to the SEC’s order, the respondent promoted the crypto-asset security on her social media account in exchange for financial payment from the issuer, receiving approximately $250,000 for the promotion. Specifically, the respondent posted a link to a securities offering conducted by an online company with a public website, in which it offered and sold digital tokens to the public. The tokens were offered and sold as investment contracts and therefore qualified as securities pursuant to Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act. The SEC’s order found that the respondent violated the anti-touting provision of the federal securities laws. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the respondent agreed to pay $1.26 million, including approximately $260,000 in disgorgement, which represents her promotional payment, plus prejudgment interest, and a $1,000,000 penalty. The respondent also agreed to not promote any crypto-asset securities for three years.
SEC orders global accounting firm’s Chinese affiliate to pay $20 million for auditing failures
On September 29, the SEC issued a cease and desist order against the Chinese affiliate of a global accounting firm for allegedly failing to comply with U.S. professional auditing requirements when conducting component audits of U.S. issuers and auditing foreign companies listed on U.S. exchanges. According to the SEC, during the course of numerous audits, personnel at the Chinese affiliate allegedly, among other things, asked clients to choose their own samples for testing and complete required audit documentation purportedly showing that the Chinese affiliate had obtained and assessed supporting evidence for certain clients’ accounting entries. This was allegedly done in order to create the illusion that the required testing of clients’ financial statements and internal controls had been conducted when there was allegedly no evidence that it had in fact happened. The SEC noted that the alleged misconduct involved both junior and senior audit team members and demonstrated a lack of supervision by audit partners. Moreover, the Chinese affiliate’s alleged failure to follow required Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) auditing standards created a significant threat to U.S. investors.
“While the SEC’s action today does not implicate a violation of the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, the action does underscore the need for the [PCAOB] to be able to inspect Chinese audit firms,” SEC Chair Gary Gensler said in the announcement. “A fundamental goal of the PCAOB’s inspection regime is to identify weaknesses in the firms’ quality control processes—the very weaknesses at issue in this case.”
Without admitting or denying the allegations, the Chinese affiliate agreed to settle the charges by paying a $20 million civil money penalty and implementing extensive remedial measures, including completing a review and assessment of its policies and procedures by an independent consultant and implementing a course of action to address identified deficiencies. Audit professionals at the Chinese affiliate who serve U.S. public company audit clients are also required to undertake additional training.
SEC charges bank holding company with over-issuance of securities
On September 29, the SEC announced a cease and desist order against a London-based bank holding company and its subsidiary (collectively, “respondents”) for engaging in unregistered offers and the sale of securities as a result of a failure to implement internal controls to track such transactions. According to the SEC’s order, after the SEC settled an action against an affiliate of the subsidiary, the subsidiary lost its status as a well-known seasoned issuer. As a result, it had to quantify the total number of securities that it anticipated offering and selling and pay registration fees for those offerings upon the filing of a new registration statement. The SEC further noted that, given this requirement, the subsidiary’s “personnel understood the consequences of this status change, including that they should consider implementing a mechanism to track offers and sales of securities off any shelf, relative to the registered amount of securities available to be offered or sold off that shelf, in order to ensure that no securities in excess of the amount registered were offered or sold.” However, according to the SEC, no internal controls were established. According to the SEC’s order, as a result of this failure, the subsidiary allegedly offered and sold approximately $17.7 billion of securities in unregistered transactions. The SEC noted that the subsidiary self-reported its over-issuances to regulators, voluntarily provided documents during the SEC investigation, and subsequently commenced a rescission offer. The SEC found that the subsidiary violated provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and that both respondents violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the respondents agreed to cease-and-desist from violating the charged provisions and to comply with certain undertakings designed to effect compliance with Section 5 of the Securities Act, in addition to paying the $200 million civil penalty. The subsidiary also agreed to pay disgorgement of $149 million and prejudgment interest of $11 million deemed satisfied by its offer of rescission.
SEC files charges against fintech company for manipulating crypto-asset securities
On September 28, the SEC filed a complaint against a Florida-based fintech company, the company’s former CEO, and the CEO of a “market making” firm (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly perpetrating a scheme to manipulate the trading volume and prices of crypto-asset securities. According the SEC, the company and the former CEO created and distributed a token using several methods, including paying individuals with tokens in exchange for promotions. They then allegedly hired the “market making” firm “to create the false appearance of robust market activity” for the token through the use of customized trading software, and then engaged in unregistered offers and sales of the token in an artificially inflated market in order to generate profits on the company’s behalf. The SEC claimed this scheme yielded more than $2 million for the company. The complaint charges the defendants with violating numerous provisions of the federal securities laws, including certain registration, antifraud, and market manipulation provisions, and seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and conduct-based injunctions. The SEC also seeks an officer and director bar against the former CEO. Based on the SEC’s announcement, the market making firm’s CEO has consented to a judgment, subject to court approval and without admitting or denying the allegations, which would permanently ban him from violating these provisions and from participating in future securities offerings. The market making firm’s CEO is also ordered to pay $36,750 in disgorgement as well as prejudgment interest of $5,118, with civil monetary penalties to be determined by the court.
“Companies cannot avoid the federal securities laws by structuring the unregistered offers and sales of their securities as bounties, compensation, or other such methods,” Associate Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division Carolyn M. Welshhans said. “As our enforcement action shows, the SEC will enforce the laws that prohibit such unregistered fund-raising schemes in order to protect investors.”
SEC, CFTC fine Wall Street firms $1.8 billion
On September 27, the SEC and CFTC announced settlements (see here and here) with numerous broker-dealers for alleged recordkeeping failures. According to the SEC, from January 2018 through September 2021, the firms’ employees communicated about business matters using text messaging applications on their personal devices. The SEC further alleged that the firms violated federal securities laws by failing to maintain or preserve the substantial majority of these off-channel communications. The SEC charged each of the firms with violating certain recordkeeping provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and with failing to reasonably supervise and detect such violations. Additionally, an investment adviser was charged with violating certain recordkeeping provisions of the Investment Advisers of 1940. In addition to paying a total of $1.1 billion in fines, the firms were ordered to cease and desist from future violations of the relevant recordkeeping provisions and were censured. The firms agreed to retain compliance consultants to, among other things, conduct comprehensive reviews of their policies and procedures relating to the retention of electronic communications found on personal devices. The SEC recognized the firms’ cooperation with the investigation.
Separately, in a related action, the CFTC announced settlements with many of the same firms for related conduct, totaling nearly $710 million. The CFTC noted that each firm acknowledged to CFTC staff that it was aware employees used unapproved methods to engage in business-related communications. The CFTC also said that as a result of each firm’s failure to ensure that its employees complied with communication policies and procedures, the firms failed to maintain business-related communications. The CFTC found that each firm failed to diligently “supervise its business as a CFTC registrant or registrants, in violation of CFTC recordkeeping and supervision provisions.”
DFPI cracks down on crypto-asset Ponzi schemes
On September 27, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation issued desist and refrain orders against 11 entities, including nine crypto asset trading platforms, one metaverse software development company, and one decentralized finance platform for violating California securities laws. While each of the 11 entities allegedly offered and sold unqualified securities through their platforms and promised various fixed rates of return to investors, DFPI claimed that the entities actually engaged in Ponzi-like schemes and used investor funds to distribute supposed profits and returns to other investors. Additionally, DFPI accused the entities of “luring” new investors through referral programs that operated like pyramid schemes in which investors would be paid commissions to recruit new investors. Referring to these as “high yield investment programs (HYIPs),” DFPI claimed the entities provided investors with few details about the people operating the HYIPs, how the HYIPs make money, or how the HYIPs facilitate deposits and withdrawals with crypto assets, among other things. DFPI also accused 10 of the 11 entities of making material representations and omissions to investors about the qualifications of their securities under California law as well as the purported risks. DFPI said in its announcement that it had been directed by an executive order issued by the governor in May (covered by InfoBytes here) to initiate enforcement actions to stop violations of consumer financial laws and to increase residents’ awareness of the benefits and risks associated with crypto asset-related financial products and services.
States accuse crypto platform of offering unregistered securities
On September 26, the New York attorney general sued a cryptocurrency platform for allegedly offering unregistered securities and defrauding investors. New York was joined by state regulators from California, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Washington, and Vermont who also filed administrative actions against the platform. The states alleged that the platform failed to register as a securities and commodities broker but told investors that it was fully in compliance. According to the New York AG’s complaint, the platform promoted and sold securities through an interest-bearing virtual currency account that promised high returns for participating investors. The NY AG said that a cease-and-desist letter was sent to the platform last year, and that while the platform stated it was “working diligently to terminate all services” in the state, it continued to handle more than 5,000 accounts as of July. The complaint charges the platform with violating New York’s Martin Act and New York Executive Law § 63(12), and seeks restitution, disgorgement of profits, and a permanent injunction.
California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) said in a press release announcing its own action that it will continue to take “aggressive enforcement efforts against unregistered interest-bearing cryptocurrency accounts.” DFPI warned companies that crypto-interest accounts are securities and are therefore subject to investor protection under state law, including disclosure of associated risks.