币安听证会解读：输了美SEC官司会有什么后果？

This week, the confrontation between Bi 'an and the US Securities and Exchange Commission was officially opened. At the latest court hearing, the lawyers of the two institutions fought fiercely. This lawsuit may not only be related to the sky-high fine, but also affect the jurisdiction of the US securities regulatory agency over the cryptocurrency industry. Koala Finance will make an in-depth analysis of the incident of Bi 'an and the US Securities and Exchange Commission in this article. In September, Bi 'an agreed to pay US$ 100 million to reach an agreement with the US Department of Justice and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission on illegal financial violations. Reconciliation: Zhao Changpeng, the then CEO of the company, admitted that he violated the US anti-money laundering law and agreed to resign as CEO, but their case with the US Securities and Exchange Commission is still pending. The US Securities and Exchange Commission accused Zhao Changpeng and the US branch of the exchange of transferring clients' funds to exaggerate their trading volume, failing to restrict American customers from using its platform and misleading investors in its market supervision and control. The regulator also accused Qian An of being an illegal member of the US Securities and Exchange Commission. It will facilitate the trading of several kinds of encrypted tokens that will be regarded as unregistered securities. In short, the judgment of the lawsuit between the US Securities and Exchange Commission and Qian' an will largely clarify whether the encrypted assets traded on the platform of Qian' an trading belong to the securities supervised by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, so the impact on the entire cryptocurrency industry is self-evident. On behalf of Qian' an, a lawyer in the United States attended the court hearing, and he clearly pointed out that the US Securities and Exchange Commission has not made clear the cryptocurrency. He said that so far, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has been saying two things when it comes to cryptocurrency. They told the cryptographer to come in and register, and at the same time close the door with the other hand and feasible ways to prevent anyone from doing this. Therefore, they asked the judge in charge of the case, Amy Berman Jackson, to dismiss the accusations made by the US Securities and Exchange Commission against them and related parties. The US Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer retorted that a test implied that the test was intended to be applied to financial products in a flexible way. Moreover, there is no clear line between securities and non-securities, and the judge questioned both Qian An and the United States. After the lawyers of Qian An and the US Securities and Exchange Commission respectively expounded their views, Judge Amy Berman Jackson seemed to be highly critical of Qian An's argument and dismissed an argument that Qian An's lawyer relied on the principle of major issues. Lawyer Qian An believed that the US Securities and Exchange Commission could not take certain regulatory actions without the approval of Congress. In addition, wealth reporter Leo Schwartz revealed Judge Amy Berman. Hudson resisted Qian An's claim that securities issuance must involve contracts, and responded that the test could cover a wider range. He even cited an example that baseball cards are usually not regarded as securities, and there are some similarities with the products currently under discussion. Jeremy Hogan, a cryptocurrency lawyer, said that the judge also criticized Qian An's fair notice defense. This argument shows that the US Securities and Exchange Commission should inform Qian An that he has committed securities violations before filing charges. On the other hand, Judge Amy. Berman Jackson didn't agree with some of the views of the SEC. In the initial series of accusations, the SEC thought that the cryptocurrency of Coin's own, including its basically no longer existing currency, the stable currency of the US dollar, was securities. The SEC also thought that several other tokens handled by Coin's security but not issued were also securities, including but not limited to this. Judge Amy Berman Jackson didn't agree with her, explaining that if these tokens were obviously securities, then the past. Where has the US Securities and Exchange Commission been for so many years? Why has the US Securities and Exchange Commission taken the opposite position or not put forward any conditions for so many years? Is it not important? What will happen if the US Securities and Exchange Commission loses the US lawsuit? How will the US Securities and Exchange Commission demonstrate its case in future lawsuits remains to be seen, but at present, it is not difficult for the US Securities and Exchange Commission to win this lawsuit? First of all, the test of the US Securities and Exchange Commission clearly shows that the regulator does not need to contact the parties to remind them of the possibility. Secondly, Judge Amy Berman Jackson expressed concern about several third-party tokens managed by Coin Security but not responsible for issuing, claiming to be worried about the possible discovery and many trials of each designated asset, and pointing out that the pedestrian is not a litigant at present. Frankly speaking, if Coin Security loses this lawsuit, they are likely to be unable to continue to provide services to American users and will face huge fines at the same time. Does this mean that Coin Security is sentenced to death, according to Hong Kong Securities Regulatory Commission officials? The information disclosed on our website shows that a virtual asset trading platform named has formally submitted a license application on, and the company behind this trading platform is probably the website of the currency security trading platform. It shows that they are using the currency security server to obtain content, and they will also obtain resources from global exchanges such as currency security. The sharing codes of the two companies are similar, and the terms of use are almost the same, or it indicates that the two companies may also share legal resources. The currency security main station and the website are being designed. There are many similarities in the world, including the shared code and the content that uses the currency security to transfer domain names. Under the background that the US Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit against the currency security and Zhao Changpeng, the world's largest cryptocurrency trading platform is likely to face increasing legal review and liquidity problems in the future. At the same time, Hong Kong is vigorously promoting the development of virtual assets and markets, and has implemented a brand-new licensing plan to attract industry participants by providing legal stability, so it has settled in Hong Kong. It is undoubtedly a better choice for Bi 'an. It is worth mentioning that last month, the federal judge rejected the travel permit application of Zhao Changpeng, the founder of Bi 'an, who wanted to go to his home in the United Arab Emirates to deal with the hospitalization and surgery of his relatives. A new court document shows that although Zhao Changpeng offered his equity in Bi 'an as a guarantee for his return to the United States, the judge refused his request. The document also shows that Zhao Changpeng's lawyer pointed out in a letter to the judge on. Two years ago, Bi 'an's last round of financing was intended to be used as a guarantee, and the equity value was as high as $100 million. According to court records, a closed-door hearing was held on this request and Zhao Changpeng's travel request was rejected. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=61257