US court rules crypto influencer conducted unregistered offering of crypto asset securities

cyptouser6 months agoCryptocurrencies News112
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against crypto influencer Ian Balina.

The court ruled that Balina offered and sold SPRK Tokens as securities in unregistered transactions, affirming that US securities laws apply to his activities.

SPRK deemed security

The SEC’s complaint, filed on Sept. 19, 2022, alleged that Balina purchased $5 million worth of SPRK tokens from Sparkster, Ltd. in May 2018. He then allegedly organized an investment pool of about 68 individuals, to whom he offered and sold SPRK tokens without registering the offering with the SEC as mandated by federal securities laws.

The SEC also claimed that Balina promoted SPRK tokens on YouTube, Telegram, and other social media platforms from May to July 2018 without disclosing a 30 percent bonus provided by Sparkster as compensation for his promotional efforts.

The SEC charged Balina with violating the offering registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 and with violating Section 17(b) of the Securities Act for failing to disclose consideration received for his promotions.

The regulator had sought partial summary judgment on the unregistered offering violation and requested a ruling that SPRK Tokens were offered and sold as securities.

Alongside its charges, the SEC also issued a cease-and-desist order against Sparkster Ltd. and its CEO, Sajjad Daya. The company contributed over $35 million to a fund for harmed investors and paid various other fees and penalties.

Promotion charges remain

The SEC additionally alleged that Balina promoted SPRK tokens on YouTube, Telegram, and social media between May and July 2018. He allegedly failed to disclose that Sparkster Ltd. offered him a 30% bonus on his token purchases in exchange for his promotions.

The promotional charges fall under Section 17(b) of the Securities Act.

Balina moved for summary judgment on both SEC claims. The court denied his requests and did not decide on Section 17(b) claims as a matter of law, leaving the promotional charges in play.

The content on this website comes from the Internet. Due to the inconvenience of proofreading the authenticity and accuracy of the copyright or content of some content, it may be temporarily impossible to confirm the authenticity and accuracy of the copyright or content. For copyright issues or other issues caused by this, please Call or email this site. It will be deleted or changed immediately after verification.

related articles

Binance to be under FRA surveillance for next 3 years: Report

55966e89˃The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has reportedly appointed international consul...

Clearstream joins ECB wholesale CBDC trials with tokenized securities

Clearstream joins ECB wholesale CBDC trials with tokenized securities

1205f261˃Central securities depository (CSD) Clearstream, a Deutsche Börse Group subsidiary, will ta...

Bitcoin trader hopes for liquidity snatch as BTC price returns to $62K

Bitcoin trader hopes for liquidity snatch as BTC price returns to $62K

55966e89˃Bitcoin (BTC) made fresh gains after the June 27 Wall Street open as United States macroeco...

Nifty News: PayPal removes NFT protections, Adidas NFT sneakers and more

Nifty News: PayPal removes NFT protections, Adidas NFT sneakers and more

1205f261˃PayPal removes protections for NFT buyers and sellersMultinational payment services firm Pa...

StanChart predicts new ATH on favorable payroll data, maintains $150k Bitcoin price

Bitcoin is poised to reach a new all-time high this weekend if upcoming payroll data on June 7 is fa...

Analyzing the US Government's Bitcoin holdings: What you need to know

Analyzing the US Government's Bitcoin holdings: What you need to know

The following is a guest post from Vincent Maliepaard, Marketing Director at IntoTheBlock.According...