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

cyptouser4 months agoCryptocurrencies News98
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

Polygon spin-off Avail partners with dWallet to bring programmable Bitcoin to Web3 rollups

Avail, a modular blockchain focused on unifying Web3 and optimizing data availability for scalable a...

US DOJ files motion to block CZ’s return to UAE over flight risk concerns

The U.S. Department of Justice (US DOJ) has filed a motion to prevent former Binance CEO and founder...

Bitwise joins growing list of Ethereum ETF managers

Bitwise Asset Management announced the launch of two Ethereum-themed exchange-traded funds (ETFs), j...

Sam Altman pushes ChatGPT mass adoption among Fortune 500 companies: Report

1205f261˃OpenAI — known for its popular generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT — is ac...

Bernstein raises long-term Bitcoin price projection to $1 million by 2033, initiates MicroStrategy coverage

Bernstein has doubled down on its optimistic Bitcoin price projections, raising its long-term foreca...

Upland secures $7M funding aiming at AI metaverse expansion and Spark token exchange listing

The web3 Metaverse “super app,” Upland, has extended its Series A funding, successfully...