News

Ripple Made Court Filling Pubic, says SEC’s $2Bn Penalty Demand is Unconventional

Ripple, the blockchain payments firm, is gearing up for a legal battle against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over the agency’s demand for a staggering $2 billion in penalties. The company has filed a robust opposition to the SEC’s penalty request, arguing that the proposed fines are excessive and disproportionate.

Ripple Made Court Filling Pubic

In a detailed court filing made public by Ripple’s defense lawyer, James Filan, the company vehemently disputes the SEC’s demand for $2 billion in penalties. Ripple contends that the proposed fines are unjustified and fail to align with the actual circumstances of the case. 

The company asserts that there were no fraudulent behavior or recklessness allegations, which typically warrant such hefty financial penalties.

Ripple further highlights its commitment to transparency in its dealings with institutional investors regarding the sale of XRP. The company highlights significant legal victories it has secured throughout the litigation process, arguing that the SEC’s penalty request is inconsistent with the court’s findings. 

Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, characterizes the SEC’s demand as a form of intimidation against the broader crypto industry in the United States.

Ripple Proposed Lower Penalty

In its opposition filing, Ripple proposes a substantially lower penalty of $10 million, arguing that this amount is more appropriate given the nature of the alleged violations and the company’s conduct. 

The filing also outlines the timeline for the legal proceedings, with the SEC’s reply brief due on May 6, 2024. The final decision on penalties will ultimately rest with Judge Analisa Torres, with Ripple expressing confidence in the fairness of the judicial process.

As Ripple challenges the SEC’s punitive penalty demand in court, the outcome of this legal showdown will be closely watched by the crypto community and industry stakeholders.

SOURCE

Leave a Comment

EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI EsI Esl Esl Esl Esl Esl Esl Esl Esl Esl Esl Esl Esl Esl Esl Esl