Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/374341067/SEC
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:11:15+00:00

Document:
.................3d 747 (11th Cir. 1974) . Turner Enters.S... Merch.... Ernst & Young. 2018) ......S................. Brigadoon Scotch Distrib.............. 494 U........ 18 F...... Shultz Cattle Co....... 15 SEC v... Infinity Grp.......... Shavers... United States............ App’x 892 (9th Cir... Inc.... Supp................S.............. 1982) ......2d 1027 (2d Cir............. 483 F............................. Release No......3d 1450 (2d Cir.......................... 49542......2d 577 (2d Cir................ 18 SEC v. 82 SEC Docket 2130................. 212 F... Tex......... Inc.N.......... 2014) . 15 SEC v.. 20 Cont’l. Mar... 1973) ............. Capital..........S......... 881 F................................. 680 (1980) . 1967) .2d 466 (10th Cir...... v..............Y...... Cavanagh........................ 265 F...... 346 U... 387 F. 2018 WL 1175156 (E..... No...... 119 (1953) ....2d 1047 (2d Cir..................... v.... 1994)..... 3 SEC v.....3d 42 (1st Cir................................. Corp............ 605 F. vacated on other grounds.......................N..3d 180 (3d Cir............... 125 F....... 540 U..... 2004 WL 762434 (Apr............................... 2000) ...... Ralston Purina Co.. Co. Sept......... 9 SEC v................... 361 (JBW)......................S........... Exchange Act Release No.................. 1979).. 20 SEC v.. 2d 337 (S............. 12 In re Matter of Munchee Inc... Inc............ Barkate v.... 12.... 2017 WL 6374434 (Dec.. 18............. 16 Long v....... 474 F........... .......3d 81 (2d Cir.2d 129 (5th Cir............. 101 F.... Glenn W...... 446 U....................... 155 F....... 18.... 6.................... Aqua–Sonic Prods.............. 406 U..D. aff’d sub nom..D... aff’d.......... Co. 3 CFTC v.............. 681 (1985) ...... 480 F................... 56 (1990)... Edwards..3d 129 (2d Cir.. Landreth........ 389 (2004) .. 18 Civ....................... 416 (ALM).. Corp........... 1998)........... 14 Glen-Arden Commodities.... SEC.............. 2005)................ Mktg........................... No....... 1989).. Costantino............ Aaron..... LLC....... 1973) . 13 Civ...2d 476 (9th Cir.........Y. 10.................... First Jersey Sec........................... 2004)............. 11......................... 13 SEC v..... 9 SEC v. 2017)............ SG Ltd......................... 11 iii ....... 5........ 2014 WL 4652121 (E..................... 128 (1972) ...........D............... SEC Realty Corp...... McDonnell.......................... SEC....... 9 SEC v.............. 493 F........ 14... 19 SEC v.... 19 SEC v. 1996) . 1998) ............... 687 F.. v.......... 2001) .S........ 8......................... 10445. 11 Landreth Timber Co......... 471 U...... 18 Reves v. 2007)............... 17 Revak v......... 20 In re Barkate....................... 1 F.... 10 SEC v...........Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 239 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Affiliated Ute Citizens v......2d 612 (2d Cir.
Defendant sought to take advantage of investor exuberance around so-called Initial Coin Offerings (“ICOs”). 1 . Defendant seeks now. it is the substance of the transaction—not the terminology used—that determines the character of the offering. and are aimed at protecting investors from fraud. 299 (1946) (definition of “security” embodies a “flexible rather than a static principle. The SEC has a keen interest in ensuring that the federal securities laws are applied to all manner of securities offerings to provide the important market and investor protections. The federal securities laws have anti-fraud and other provisions that are principles-based. to re-cast the investments at issue here as “currency” sales.J.”) (emphasis added). However. These provisions provide the SEC with important tools that can be applied to securities activities involving novel technologies— regardless of how they are used. in his motion to dismiss. 328 U. Howey Co. using this terminology to peddle the investments.S.. The offerings here were securities under long-standing and clear precedent. in which he promised investors high profits in real estate investments and later in diamonds. Defendant simply engaged in old-fashioned fraud dressed in a new-fashioned label. exempt from the securities laws. 293.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 242 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The United States Department of Justice (“Government”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) each have filed actions against Defendant Maksim Zaslavskiy (“Zaslavskiy” or “Defendant”) for fraud in connection with his offer and sale of investments in two schemes. But. broad and flexible. W. See SEC v. as well as registration provisions that mandate disclosure of critical information to investors. one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits. as the Government and the SEC allege.
77e(c) and 77q(a).” together with REcoin Tokens the “Tokens”). Its mission is to protect investors. leave to file a brief in support of the Government and in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. REcoin. and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act. 18). and in Diamond Reserve Club (“Diamond” or “Diamond Tokens.Y. maintain fair. LLC. REcoin Grp. SEC v.C. 15 U. INTEREST OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION I. See Letter at 1 (Feb. (2) the Tokens are “currencies” exempted from the securities laws. Sept. 15 U. and was later granted. §§ 77e(a). and (3) Sections 10(b) and 32 of the Exchange Act are unconstitutionally vague as applied to “cryptocurrencies. Found. 5(c). 2018. The SEC has similarly charged Zaslavskiy. and Diamond with violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.S. the SEC sought.. 2. 2017). and facilitate capital formation. SEC’s Mission The SEC is the primary regulator of the U.N. orderly and efficient markets. LLC (“REcoin”) in the form of a so-called “Initial Coin Offering” (“ICO”) for interests in REcoin (the “REcoin Token”). See Complaint.E. and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).C. securities markets.S.S. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff. based largely on the same underlying conduct. id. 29. 2018) (D. as well as violations of Sections 5(a). No.. id. 17 Civ.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 243 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A grand jury sitting in this District has charged Defendant with conspiracy and substantive securities fraud counts.” On February 2. in contravention of Sections 10(b) and 32 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). 5725 (RJD) (E. Critical to 2 . § 77b(a)(1).D. § 78c(a)(1). et al. The charges arise out of Zaslavskiy’s alleged fraud in connection with general solicitations for investments in REcoin Group Foundation. Zaslavskiy has moved to dismiss the Government’s charges on the basis that: (1) the Tokens are not “securities” within the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act.
coindesk. and globally. 406 U. See Joel Seligman. over $5 billion in 2017. The overall size of the ICO market has grown exponentially.com/ico-tracker (last visited Mar. 19. 2003). . United States. when half of the new securities sold during the post-World War I period turned out to be worthless. tokens. 101 F. in particular.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 244 the SEC’s effectiveness in promoting fair disclosures and preventing fraud in the offer and sale of securities is the ability to enforce violations of the securities laws through civil actions.. digitally-stored data packages called blocks. A blockchain is a peer-to-peer database spread across a network that uses cryptography to record all transactions in the network in theoretically unchangeable. ICOs promise profits through the issuance of digital assets (often called coins. such as those at issue in this case. Issuers and individuals increasingly have been using distributed ledger (or blockchain) technology in connection with raising capital for businesses and projects. or cryptocurrencies) in exchange for fiat currency or other digital assets (often Bitcoins). to substitute a philosophy of full disclosure for the philosophy of caveat emptor and thus to achieve a high standard of business ethics in the securities industry. The Transformation of Wall Street 1—2 (3d ed.S. 1996) (quoting Affiliated Ute Citizens v. Inc. the definitional provisions of the Securities and Exchange Acts and how they apply to all manner of instruments. The SEC obviously has a keen interest in the interpretation and application of the securities laws and. See generally www. linked together in a chain. 128. 151 (1972)). These numbers may understate the size of the ICO market (and the potential for investor loss) as many ICOs 3 .” SEC v. The securities laws embrace a “fundamental purpose .3d 1450. It is reported that $3 billion has been raised so far in 2018. 2018). 1466 (2d Cir.. and nearly $300 million in 2016. Congress enacted the federal securities laws and created the Commission after the stock market crash of 1929. First Jersey Sec. ICOs are blockchain-enabled offerings often targeted at retail investors—in the U. .S.
81207. 2017) (the “Report”) (Exhibit A hereto). § 78u(a). the SEC’s message to issuers and others in this space has been clear: the use of distributed ledger or blockchain technology to raise capital or engage in securities transactions does not alter the need to comply with the federal securities laws. The SEC has been actively enforcing the federal securities laws in the ICO space...Y.D. 7007 (CBA) (E. Much of this form of fund-raising appears to be unlawfully conducted through unregistered and/or fraudulent offerings of securities. Release No.” See Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO. the SEC has brought a number of enforcement actions concerning ICOs for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Report explained that issuers of distributed ledger or blockchain technology-based securities must register offers and sales of such securities unless a valid exemption from registration applies. regarding an ICO for so-called “DAO Tokens. The automation of certain functions through “smart contracts” or computer code or other technology. does not remove conduct from the purview of the federal securities laws. Thus. No. et al.C.. In addition to the parallel action the SEC has filed against Defendant and his entities.D. PlexCorps. 2017) (same). No.S. 15 U. Jan. the Report concluded. 186 (BML) (N. 2018) (emergency action to halt allegedly fraudulent and unregistered ICO). 17 Civ. 30.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 245 “trade up” for some period after they are issued.N. 18 Civ. 1. et al. See SEC v. the SEC considered the particular facts and circumstances presented by the offer and sale of DAO Tokens and concluded that they were securities based on long-standing legal principles. SEC Enforcement Actions Involving ICOs In July 2017. SEC v. II. In re Matter of Munchee Inc. AriseBank. Dec. Tex. and that offers and sales of DAO Tokens were thus subject to the federal securities laws. 2017 WL 7184670 (July 25. In the Report. 4 . the SEC issued a Report of Investigation pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Exchange Act.
The ability of bad actors to commit age-old frauds using new technologies. 2017). See SEC Chairman Jay Clayton. 10445. SEC Suspends Trading in Three Issuers Claiming Involvement in Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Technology (Feb. See 5 . 28. including that. https://www. 2018). 16.sec.sec.shtml (listing all SEC trading suspensions) (last visited Mar. coupled with the significant amounts of capital pouring into the ICO market—particularly from retail investors—has only heightened these concerns. 2017). III.sec. 11. 19. 2017 WL 6374434 (Dec. Commission staff has noted specific risks to investors due to the fact that ICOs are promoted online and involve the issuance and distribution of a digital asset on a blockchain. Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings (Dec.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 246 Exchange Act Release No. there is substantially less investor protection than in our traditional securities markets. https://www. with correspondingly greater opportunities for fraud and manipulation. https://www. Investor Protection Concerns Involving ICOs The SEC’s Chairman has publicly expressed concerns regarding the ICO markets. 2018).gov/litigation/suspensions.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-2017- 12-11 (Exhibit D). See Investor Alert: Public Companies Making ICO-Related Claims (Aug. https://www. 2017) (“Munchee”) (settled administrative proceeding against unregistered ICO).sec. as they are currently operating. 11. The SEC has also issued more than a dozen trading suspensions to halt trading in the stock of publicly-traded issuers who have made spurious claims relating to blockchain technology.gov/news/press- release/2018-20 (SEC announces trading suspensions in issuers claiming involvement in cryptocurrency and blockchain technology) (Exhibit C).gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/ia_icorelatedclaims (warning investors about potential market manipulation schemes involving publicly traded companies that claim ICO-related news) (Exhibit B).
7. 2018). For example. 6 . Several characteristics of how ICOs are conducted pose challenges for law enforcement in investigating fraud. and (6) evolving technology: digital assets involve new and developing technologies. unlike money held in a bank or brokerage account. (4) seizing or freezing digital assets: digital “wallets” (software that “stores” digital assets) may be encrypted and.gov/additional- resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletin-initial-coin-offerings (warning investors to the risks of ICOs) (Exhibit E). making it harder to follow the flow of funds. may not be held by a third-party custodian. Statement on Potentially Unlawful Online Platforms for Trading Digital Assets (Mar. https://www. (5) anonymity: many digital assets are specifically designed to be pseudonymous or anonymous. especially where additional anonymizing tools are employed.gov/news/public-statement/enforcement- tm-statement-potentially-unlawful-online-platforms-trading (Exhibit G).gov/additional-resources/news- alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-alert-bitcoin-other-virtual-currency (warning investors to the risks of Bitcoin and other virtual currency-related investments) (Exhibit F). (3) no central authority: as there is no central authority that collects blockchain user information. thus. Investor Alert: Bitcoin and Other Virtual Cryptocurrency- Related Investments (May 7.investor. Commission staff also has noted that digital assets may be trading on secondary markets over unlawful online platforms that may offer few investor protections. (2) international scope: blockchain transactions and users span the globe and there may be restrictions on how the SEC can obtain and use information from foreign jurisdictions. (1) tracing funds: traditional financial institutions (such as banks) often are not involved. https://www. https://www.investor. 2014). the SEC generally must rely on other sources.sec. for this type of information. attribution of a specific digital asset to an individual or entity could be difficult or impossible. such as digital asset exchanges.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 247 Investor Bulletin: Initial Coin Offerings (July 25. 2017).
United States v. Defendant launched a website for the REcoin ICO where he 7 . the SEC formed a Cyber Unit within its Division of Enforcement. Those communications and actions have been highlighted on the SEC’s www. including involving distributed ledger technology and ICOs. which must be taken as true.” See https://www. 2018).N. The SEC briefly sets forth here certain facts alleged in the Indictment. Supp. and filed enforcement actions. The SEC’s ability to fulfill its mission and protect investors and the markets is critically dependent on the appropriate application of the federal securities laws to all types of instruments—including the Tokens at issue in this case.Y. 19.investor. IV. The SEC is continuing to police the digital asset and ICO markets vigorously and to bring enforcement actions against those who conduct ICOs or other actions relating to digital assets in violation of the federal securities laws. investor alerts and bulletins. Indictment ¶¶ 1-3. 2015).investor. “Spotlight on Initial Coin Offerings and Digital Assets. to address cyber-related misconduct. the SEC’s investor concerns in this area have been communicated through numerous public statements. Defendant Zaslavskiy conducted ICOs for interests in REcoin in July of 2017 and.gov website on a page entitled. 108 F. In 2017. later.D. FACTUAL BACKGROUND  The Government’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (the “Government’s Brief”) comprehensively sets forth the facts relevant to the resolution of this motion. Continuing Efforts to Protect Investors The SEC is acutely focused on unlawful conduct in this area. press releases.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 248 Overall. Scully. 3d 59. 10. 117 (E.gov/additional-resources/specialized-resources/spotlight- initial-coin-offerings-digital-assets (last visited Mar. in Diamond. An improper application of the definitional provisions of the Securities and Exchange Acts or an unduly narrow reading of established precedent as applied to the Tokens here could severely hinder the SEC’s efforts.
spoke of other team members associated with the enterprise. ¶ 14. At some point in September 2017. by explaining that Diamond would use the proceeds of the Diamond ICO to invest in diamonds. in reality no digital token or asset existed and none had been developed. Id. Id. 23. ¶¶ 13. Id. As he did with respect to REcoin. 8 . Defendant detailed the growth efforts he was engaged in with respect to Diamond. ¶ 14. see also id.” touted the “experienced team” of professionals that led the enterprise. ¶ 16. Id. 22. Id. ¶¶ 18-19.” Id.] based on the soundest strategies. ¶ 11 (Defendant explained that the REcoin ICO funds would be used to buy real estate and investors could look forward to “some of the highest potential returns”). Id.” id. and explained that REcoin “invests” the proceeds from the REcoin ICO “into global real estate[. and permitted investors to purchase REcoin Tokens using fiat currency or digital assets. ¶ 17. Defendant also touted efforts to list the Diamond Tokens on exchanges to increase profits. Defendant made other misrepresentations in connection with the REcoin ICO. Defendant advertised the REcoin ICO as “an attractive investment opportunity” that “grows in value. Id. and otherwise made many of the same misstatements with respect to the Diamond ICO as he did with respect to REcoin. 16.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 249 identified himself as the founder and CEO. and by forecasting a “minimum growth of 10% to 15% per year” for the investments. such as a “REcoin Purse” that was “secured by the latest cryptocurrency tools. Defendant’s scheme with respect to the Diamond Tokens was substantially identical. including regarding the amount of funds raised and the existence of a team of professionals.000 individuals invested in the REcoin ICO. including developing the Diamond “ecosystem” and identifying diamonds and their storage locations. Defendant began advertising Diamond Tokens by offering REcoin Token purchasers the opportunity to convert their investments into Diamond Tokens. ¶ 12. ¶¶ 22-23. Although Defendant touted the availability of digital asset technologies to protect an investor’s purchase. ¶¶ 20. More than 1.
1998). I. Legal Background A.S. Ralston Purina Co. unless a registration statement has been filed or an exemption from registration applies. 605 F. SEC v. 97.. 2017). 618 (2d Cir. et seq. 1979) (citing SEC v.1 See. contains registration provisions that contemplate that the offer or sale of “securities” to the public must be accompanied by the “full and fair disclosure” afforded by registration with the SEC and delivery of a statutory prospectus containing information necessary to enable potential purchasers to make an informed investment decision. Supp. 346 U.. 446 U.N. Cavanagh. Thus. et al.C. SEC v. 100. 360 (S. Section 5(c) of the Securities Act provides a similar prohibition against offers to sell. 1) (Sept. The SEC agrees in full with the arguments in the Government’s Brief—which are consistent with the SEC’s long-standing legal precedent—and here highlights only certain points germane to rebut Defendant’s arguments.S. 1 F. unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security or an exemption for registration applies.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 250 ARGUMENT  The Government’s Brief persuasively demonstrates that the Tokens are securities and that Defendant’s motion should be denied.3d 129 (2d Cir. (c). The Registration and Anti-Fraud Provisions of the Securities Laws The Securities Act. 119. both Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act prohibit the unregistered offer or sale of “securities” in interstate commerce absent an exemption. Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act are at issue in the parallel civil case filed by the SEC.g. No. §§ 77a.Y. SEC v. 124 (1953)). 9 . it is unlawful for any person. Aaron. §§ 77e(a). vacated on other grounds. directly or indirectly. 2d 337. e. 680 (1980). 15 U. 15 U.S. to engage in the offer or sale of securities in interstate commerce. 17 Civ.  1 Although not specifically at issue in this criminal action. 1998). or offers to buy. 155 F. 29. 94.E. aff’d.S. REcoin.2d 612. See Complaint ¶¶ 10.C... 5725 (RJD) (D. Section 5(a) of the Securities Act provides that.D.
C.. As the Supreme Court has recognized. . see also SEC v.” See id. . 60-61 (1990). to employ any device.S. Leonard. 15 U. . “Investment Contracts” Are “Securities” Under Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act. 529 F. § 77q(a). et seq.S. 540 U.g. See 328 U. 87-91 (2d Cir. Howey states the test for both the criminal and civil enforcement of the securities laws. scheme. . 2008). . See. similarly prohibits “in the offer or sale of any securities . prohibits using or employing “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . As the Government’s Brief notes.” 328 U. the Supreme Court’s decision in Howey holds that an “investment contract” is an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. §§ 77b(a).” Reves v. . at 299. Howey “permits the fulfillment of the statutory purpose of compelling full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of the many types of instruments” offered in “our commercial world. The Securities Act.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 251 The Exchange Act..” Id.C. or . 78c(a). The applicability of the foregoing provisions and the outcome of the criminal and civil actions before this Court therefore turn on the meaning of the word “securities” as it is used in the Securities and Exchange Acts.S.S.S..” 15 U.S. 494 U. . 10 . et seq. . §§ 78a. Edwards. or artifice to defraud. a security includes “an investment contract. to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact . § 78j(b) (emphasis added).3d 83. Ernst & Young. 15 U. . §§ 77a. B. United States v. at 301.S. e. any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe. 56.C. Congress crafted “a definition of ‘security’ sufficiently broad to encompass virtually any instrument that might be sold as an investment. 389. 393 (2004).
” Id. No.” id. at *9-11. Sept. See SEC v.” Indictment ¶¶ 12. II. virtual currency or through online funds transfer services. 2017 WL 6374434. 11 . Tex. and (3) investors expected that their profits would be derived from the entrepreneurial and managerial efforts of others given that the promoters laid out their own vision and plans for the company in promotional materials. see also Munchee. spoke about how they would select persons to work on the projects “based on their expertise and credentials. among other factors: (1) investors in DAO Tokens purchased them using the digital asset known as Ether. 2017 WL 7184670.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 252 C. at *9. The Tokens Here Are Investment Contracts and Therefore Securities The charges in the Indictment make clear that the Tokens easily satisfy each prong of Howey: they constitute an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial and managerial efforts of others. Shavers. 13 Civ. 20. whereas the limited voting rights and wide dispersion of investors “did not provide [investors] with meaningful control over the enterprise. *8 (citation omitted). Such investment is the type of contribution of value that can create an investment contract under Howey. The SEC’s Application of Howey in the DAO Report In the Report. Token Purchasers Invested Money Individuals invested in REcoin and Diamond “through its website using their credit cards. (2) investors had a reasonable expectation of profits because DAO promoters informed investors that the DAO was a for-profit entity “whose objective was to fund projects in exchange for a return on investment.’” Report. 2014 WL 4652121. which constituted an “investment of ‘money.” and touted their expertise in blockchain technologies. 2014) (holding that an investment of Bitcoin meets the first prong of Howey).D. the Commission concluded that “DAO Tokens” were investment contracts under Howey because. *4 (settled order). *1 (E. A. 18. 416 (ALM).
1991) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 2004). In any event. Release No. whereas vertical commonality focuses on the relationship between the promoter and the investor.” Indictment ¶¶ 11. In a Common Enterprise2 Defendant told investors in the REcoin Tokens that their assets would be pooled and invested into real estate selected by Defendant and his “experienced team” so that “people from all over the world’” could share in “real estate investments ‘with some of the highest potential returns. aff’d sub nom.” In its opinion in In re Barkate. 21.” id. 82 SEC Docket 2130. SEC. 2005). The first prong of Howey contemplates that the “‘investment’ may take the form of ‘goods and services. App’x 892 (9th Cir. The second prong of Howey is therefore met because the “fortunes of each investor depend upon the profitability of the enterprise as a whole” and there was a “tying of each individual investor’s fortunes to the fortunes of the other investors by the pooling of  2 The Commission does not require commonality per se or view a “common enterprise” as a distinct element of the term “investment contract. Broadly defined. *3 n. Com. 22.3d 81. SEC Realty Corp.” and that the company “forecast a minimum growth of 10% to 15% per year... 940 F. Defendant made similar representations with respect to the Diamond Tokens.” Id. that investor funds would be used to purchase diamonds selected by Defendant and his “experienced team. Barkate v. The Second Circuit has stated that a showing of “horizontal commonality” can establish a common enterprise. the Indictment shows the existence of commonality in this case. such that the fortunes of investors are tied to each other. an investment occurred here regardless of how Defendant now seeks to relabel it. Br. 574 (10th Cir. namely. 8.” Def. 1994). 87-88 (2d Cir. horizontal commonality is the pooling of investor assets in the common enterprise. at 12. as explained further herein. 12 .2d 564.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 17 of 25 PageID #: 253 Defendant’s insistence that people who chose to buy a Token were “simply exchanging one medium of currency for another. Inc. ¶ 19. B. ¶¶ 14. 18 F. Lovelace Motor Freight. the Commission stated that a “common enterprise” is not a distinct requirement for an “investment contract” under Howey. After offering a “conversion of REcoin Tokens into Diamond [T]okens. 2004 WL 762434. Accordingly.’ or some other ‘exchange of value. 49542. 14.13 (Apr. 125 F. See generally Revak v. essentially concedes that the first prong of Howey is satisfied.’” Uselton v.
at Ex. C.” Revak v.S. strict vertical commonality may also be sufficient). that there is no commonality because each individual can dispose of a Token on his or her own. Br. is misguided.3d at 87 (in the absence of horizontal commonality. 22-58). B (Diamond whitepaper) (D. 87 (2d Cir. With a Reasonable Expectation of Profits The various promotional materials disseminated by Defendant informed investors that REcoin and Diamond were for-profit entities such that the value of the investments would be expected to increase based on the profitability of the business. Accordingly. at Ex. An individual’s ability to exchange or dispose of an investment contract on his or her own—which exists with respect to many forms of investments that are straight-forward examples of investment contracts (see. Edwards. e. 22-50). 13 . 18 F. Specifically.” Indictment ¶ 14. 18 F.g.. the Diamond Token was forecasted for a “minimum growth of 10% to 15% per year” and Defendant informed investors that he was looking to list the Diamond Token “on external exchanges [to] make more profit.” Id. The second prong of Howey focuses on whether an individual’s fortunes with respect to the investment are tied together to others’. as they were undisputedly linked here. 540 U. 1994). 18-19 (discussing pro-rata distribution of profits).E. See Def. ¶ 22. at 391- 92 (purchaser of payphone lease investment contract had option to sell back lease to promoter))—is not germane to and does not alter this analysis. the supposed REcoin Token was “an attractive investment opportunity” because it would “grow in value. Similarly. as the REcoin whitepaper stated. id.E. See Revak..3 Defendant’s contrary argument.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 18 of 25 PageID #: 254 assets.3d 81. see also infra p. investors in the Tokens had a reasonable expectation of an increase in the  3 The investments here also satisfy the strict vertical commonality test because investors’ fortunes in the Tokens were tied to Defendant’s profits. usually combined with the pro-rata distribution of profits. SEC Realty Corp. Defendant claimed that he would earn a “commission” when the Token holders used or sold their Tokens. A (REcoin whitepaper) (D.
other periodic payments. Id. Derived from the Managerial Efforts of Others Defendant represented that the REcoin investment would grow in value based on his managerial efforts both in selecting the assets that would back the investments and in developing the supposed environment in which the Tokens could be used.2d 466.” SEC v. 540 U. Indictment ¶ 11. in which the essential inquiry is “whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably significant ones. v.. Seeking to minimize the central role Defendant held himself out as playing in these ventures. at 394 (explaining that expected profits can include “dividends.” Id. Def.”) (emphasis added). Corp. and developers and invests its proceeds into global real estate based on the soundest strategies. 470- 71 (10th Cir.” Indictment ¶ 14. Defendant stated that “REcoin is led by an experienced team of brokers. Defendant likewise explained that his success of his efforts to list Diamond Tokens on exchanges was among the sources of the investors’ returns. Br. D. at 15. SEC. a type of profit specifically recognized as satisfying Howey. 1967) (promoters’ efforts to “develop” a “structure into which investors entered” was part of efforts to increase the value of the investment). However.S.. those essential managerial efforts which affect the failure or success of the enterprise. 1973). He also stated that the value of the Diamond Tokens would grow based on his development of the Diamond “ecosystem. Defendant argues that “adoptors [sic] with shared professional interests would work together to create an ecosystem” that would lead to an increase in the venture’s value. the investors in these Tokens “could 14 .Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 19 of 25 PageID #: 255 value of their purchase. 387 F. ¶¶ 22. Turner Enters. ¶¶ 19-21. Defendant cannot minimize the importance of the supposed investment expertise of him and his team. Inc. 482 (9th Cir.2d 476. lawyers. 474 F. Glenn W. Edwards. see also Cont’l Mktg.. This suffices to meet Howey’s last prong. or the increased value of the investment. Given Defendant’s statement that “people from all over the world” were free to purchase the Tokens.
.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 20 of 25 PageID #: 256 not reasonably be believed to be desirous or capable of undertaking” these projects “on their own. those efforts do not negate a promoter’s significant managerial efforts. there was no commonality. e. Defendant’s Attempt to Label the Investments Here as “Cryptocurrencies” Does Not Change Their Character as Securities Defendant dubs the investments at issue here “cryptocurrencies” or “virtual currencies” and urges the Court to issue a broad ruling that such assets—as a class—are statutorily exempt from the definition of securities under the Securities and Exchange Acts. 474 F.g. 687 F. Defendant argues that: (1) the Tokens were “to be” or were “intended to be” “currency” as that term is used in the Exchange Act.” and thus had to rely on the Defendant’s managerial expertise. Defendant argues that “cryptocurrencies” or “virtual currencies” are “currency” within the 15 . See. Rather. Glenn W. 583-84 (2d Cir. 529 F. III. whatever profit would not be derived from the managerial effort of others. despite the fact that investors put forth the majority of the labor that made the enterprise profitable. and therefore exempt from the securities laws. because the promoter dictated the terms and controlled the scheme). Even if an investor’s efforts help to make an enterprise profitable. at 6-10. Turner. (2) because there was no pro-rata distribution of profits. Def. Br. A.2d 577. Defendant’s arguments mischaracterize the facts and misstate the law. SEC v. Aqua–Sonic Prods. Corp. and (3) because the REcoin investors (but not the Diamond investors) were offered voting rights.. 1982).2d at 482 (finding that a multi-level marketing scheme was an investment contract and that investors relied on the promoter’s managerial efforts.3d at 88 (investors need not literally rely “solely” on the efforts of others). see also Leonard. Defendant’s Contrary Arguments Are Unavailing Defendant does not squarely address most of the foregoing factual contentions or their interaction with Howey.
See.”4 First. 421 U.. Inc v. 681. e. 14.S. Landreth. as detailed above. 24.C.g. 20. 421 U. even if Defendant is to be believed that his intent at the time was eventually to issue tokens to be used as “cryptocurrencies” in a blockchain-based ecosystem. Defendant’s fund-raising effort to obtain capital—even assuming an intention to build that ecosystem—bears all the hallmarks of a securities offering. Defendant offered and sold the investment opportunity to profit from his development of that ecosystem.1 (1985). 15 U. § 78c(a)(10). 837. e. But. 22-23. 16.S. See. 16 . 849 (1975). 686 n. The Securities Act’s definition of “security” does not exclude “currency” (see id.. Defendant’s effort to evade the application of the securities laws by labeling the Tokens “cryptocurrencies” should be rejected as contrary to the broad and principles-based analysis that decades of law dictate. at 849 (“Congress intended the application of these [securities] statutes to turn on the economic realities underlying a transaction.S. building such an ecosystem would have required Defendant’s efforts before any cryptocurrency could be issued by it or used within it. Regulators are Looking at Cryptocurrency. and are therefore exempt from the definition of “security.”). Forman. 471 U. see also SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and CFTC Chairman Christopher Giancarlo. v. Found.S. and not on the name appended thereto.C.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 21 of 25 PageID #: 257 meaning of the Exchange Act. the appropriate focus is on the economics of the offering. See Landreth Timber Co.S. not its label. What Defendant promised purchasers at the time of the offer and sale were returns on an investment. United Hous. Wall Street Journal (Jan. one day.. Second. See Indictment ¶¶ 11.” 15 U. § 77b(a)(1)). 2018) (“[S]ome products that are labeled cryptocurrencies have characteristics  4 The definition of “security” under the Exchange Act expressly excludes “currency. § 78c(a)(10) (Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act). The economic realities demonstrate that the investments offered and sold are securities. Forman.” simply because he now has decided to call them “cryptocurrencies. Defendant’s supposed plan that the Tokens would. be useful in that ecosystem that he had not built does not alter the nature of Defendant’s promise to investors.g. but courts have treated the two definitions as the same.
and could not be used to buy anything. 569-70 (S.N. Ulbricht. The offer.. 3d 540. 1989) (examining “the economic realities of [the promoter]’s program” and rejecting the promoter’s attempts to “avoid the securities laws by simply attaching the label ‘consulting agreement’ to a package of services which [was] clearly .2d 129. Nor must the Court broadly decide whether an entire category of “cryptocurrency” is a “currency” for purposes of the exclusion set forth in Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act. § 1956(c)(4). For example. the Ulbricht court’s decision that Bitcoin is a “fund” or “monetary instrument” says nothing about whether the Tokens Defendant offered and sold are securities.5  5 The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has noted: “In contrast to real currency. Defendant advances a number of strawman arguments concerning digital assets unlike those at issue here. 18 U. Defendant relies on United States v.D.S. an investment contract”). 881 F. because the question whether an investment constitutes a “security” within the meaning of the Securities and Exchange Acts is highly fact-specific.g. virtual currency  17 . the Court need not resolve broader questions about whether all (or which) digital assets are within the purview of the Acts. Supp. one is hard- pressed to imagine what would be left of the securities laws if simply labelling an investment contract a “currency” could make it so. Long v. sale and trading of such products must be carried out in compliance with securities law. 136 (5th Cir.C. Defendant’s Tokens were not even created at the time of the offer and sale.. . In particular. disclosure and antifraud requirements of our securities laws. but does not have all the attributes of real currency.Y. 31 F. ‘virtual’ currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments. Indeed. .Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 22 of 25 PageID #: 258 that make them securities. e.”). 2014). Finally. But Bitcoin is a completely different asset than the investment at issue here. Thus. Shultz Cattle Co. where the district court determined that Bitcoin is a type of “fund” or “monetary instrument” under a money laundering statute. The SEC will vigorously pursue those who seek to evade the registration. See.
18 F. 938.100(m)). 15-29.” In re Coinflip. and are customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance. See Def. A Pro-Rata Distribution of Profits is Not Required and. IRS Virtual Currency Guidance. 2015). Inc.” Guidance:Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering. available at https://www. as well as a pro rata distribution of profits.. 18. Co. 17. what was offered in this case was plainly not a currency of any nature. Revak. 2001) (finding horizontal commonality).Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 23 of 25 PageID #: 259 When one looks past labels. I.” “either for direct distribution or as an increase in the value of the investment. 212 F. Other courts that have applied horizontal commonality recognize that it is sufficient that “each investor was entitled to receive returns directly proportionate to his or her investment stake.gov/resources/statutes- regulations/guidance/application-fincens-regulations-persons-administering (last visited Mar.3d 180. accord SEC v. *1 n. 2014 WL 1224474 (Apr. SG Ltd. The REcoin whitepaper states that the profits from the REcoin enterprise  does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.. CFTC No.” SEC v. Br. in Any Event. 2015 WL 5535736. B. diamonds. 46-47. 2000) (finding horizontal commonality where the “return on investment was to be apportioned according to the amounts committed by the investor” and was “directly proportional to the amount of that investment”). or Using Virtual Currencies (Mar. § 1010. Notice 2014-21. The IRS has concluded that “virtual currency is not treated as currency” for purposes of federal tax laws.3d 42.S. 2018). Infinity Grp. 2013) (discussing 31 C. “distinct from ‘real’ currencies. Here. 188 (3d Cir. 18 .3d at 87. Is Present Here Defendant is also incorrect to suggest that horizontal commonality requires a pro-rata distribution of profit.R.2 (Sept. 14.B. 2014-16 I. Exchanging. 265 F. which are the coin and paper money of the United States or another country that are designated as legal tender. circulate. 2014). The CFTC has concluded that Bitcoin is a virtual currency that is a commodity.” which is “usually” combined with such distribution— but not that such a distribution is necessary..F. 19. The Second Circuit has explained that horizontal commonality requires “pooling of assets. as the Supreme Court has instructed. at 13.fincen.R. investors would have reasonably expected profits (from real estate.R. and/or tokens) that were directly proportional to their investment. 51 (1st Cir.
and because. a proportionate return “as an increase in the value of the investment.” SG Ltd. Tucker. such that the commonality prong is satisfied.5 & 32 (REcoin whitepaper). at 13 n. 423 (5th Cir. given the large number of REcoin investors (more than 1. noting that the voting process provided limited information for investors to make informed decisions. at 27-51 (REcoin whitepaper).3d 747. C.3d at 47). 2007) (finding an investment contract even where voting rights were provided to purported general partners.”). The “Voting Rights” Offered to REcoin Investors Were Illusory Defendant argues that because the REcoin Tokens gave investors voting rights. See Williamson v. 483 F. To the extent Defendant argues that the term “investment contract” is void for vagueness. see id.000. Br.2d 404. Br. see Indictment ¶ 17). Co. their ability to exercise any real control would be minimal. at 17. That reinvestment of profits is nothing more than a pro-rata distribution in kind to the investors in the enterprise (in other words. See Def. Merch. many types of securities come with voting rights. of course. each partner’s role having been diluted to the level or a single shareholder in a corporation. And. 1981) (“[O]ne would not expect partnership interests sold to large numbers of the general public to provide any real partnership control.2d 1047.  19 . investors retained control of the enterprise such that the last Howey prong is not met. See Def. these voting rights were illusory both because there is no detail in the offering materials about how the voting process would work. 480 F. Brigadoon Scotch Distrib. at some point there would be so many [limited] partners that a partnership vote would be more like a corporate vote..6  6 The SEC agrees with the Government’s treatment of Defendant’s vagueness argument. 265 F. see also SEC v. however. Here. 645 F. the Second Circuit has rejected that argument.Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 24 of 25 PageID #: 260 would be reinvested into that enterprise—an allegation that Defendant acknowledges in his papers and does not dispute. LLC. Capital. and the purported general partners lacked control over the information in the ballots). such as common shares in a public company. See SEC v.. 754-66 (11th Cir.
Case 1:17-cr-00647-RJD-RER Document 25 Filed 03/19/18 Page 25 of 25 PageID #: 261 .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 77
 § 78
 v. 
 v. 
 § 78
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 77
 v. 
 § 78
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 78
 v. 
 § 77
 § 78
 § 1956
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1010
 v. 
 v.