Tag: cryptocurrency

OFAC Reaffirms Focus on Virtual Currency With Updated Sanctions Law Guidance

On October 15, 2021, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) announced updated guidance for virtual currency companies in meeting their obligations under US sanctions laws. On the same day, OFAC also issued guidance clarifying various cryptocurrency-related definitions.

Coming on the heels of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020—and in the context of the Biden administration’s effort to crackdown on ransomware attacks—the recent guidance is the latest indication that regulators are increasingly focusing on virtual currency and blockchain. In light of these developments, virtual currency market participants and service providers should ensure they are meeting their respective sanctions obligations by employing a “risk-based” anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance program.

This update highlights the government’s continued movement toward subjecting the virtual currency industry to the same requirements, scrutiny and consequences in cases of noncompliance as applicable to traditional financial institutions.

IN DEPTH

The release of OFAC’s Sanctions Compliance Guidance for the Virtual Currency Industry indicates an increasing expectation for diligence as it has now made clear on several occasions that sanctions compliance “obligations are the same” for virtual currency companies who must employ an unspecified “risk-based” program (See: OFAC Consolidated Frequently asked Questions 560). OFAC published it with the stated goal of “help[ing] the virtual currency industry prevent exploitation by sanctioned persons and other illicit actors.”

With this release, OFAC also provided some answers and updates to two of its published sets of “Frequently Asked Questions.”

FAQ UPDATES (FAQ 559 AND 546)

All are required to comply with the US sanctions compliance program, including persons and entities in the virtual currency and blockchain community. OFAC has said time and again that a “risk-based” program is required but that “there is no single compliance program or solution suitable for all circumstances” (See: FAQ 560). While market participants and service providers in the virtual currency industry must all comply, the risk of violating US sanctions are most acute for certain key service providers, such as cryptocurrency exchanges and over-the-counter (OTC) desks that facilitate large volumes of virtual currency transactions.

OFAC previously used the term “digital currency” when it issued its first FAQ and guidance on the subject (FAQ 560), which stated that sanctions compliance is applicable to “digital currency” and that OFAC “may include as identifiers on the [Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons] SDN List specific digital currency addresses associated with blocked persons.” Subsequently, OFAC placed certain digital currency addresses on the SDN List as identifiers.

While OFAC previously used the term “digital currency,” in more recent FAQs and guidance, it has used a combination of the terms “digital currency” and “virtual currency” without defining those terms until it released FAQ 559.

In FAQ 559, OFAC defines “virtual currency” as “a digital representation of value that functions as (i) a medium of exchange; (ii) a unit of account; and/or (iii) a store of value; and is neither issued nor granted by any jurisdiction.” This is a broad definition but likely encompasses most assets, which are commonly referred to as “cryptocurrency” or “tokens,” as most of these assets may be considered as “mediums of exchange.”

OFAC also defines “digital currency” as “sovereign cryptocurrency, virtual currency (non-fiat), and a digital representation of fiat currency.” This definition appears to be an obvious effort by OFAC to make clear that its definitions include virtual currencies issued or backed by foreign governments and stablecoins.

The reference to “sovereign cryptocurrency” is focused on cryptocurrency issued by foreign governments, such as Venezuela. This is not the first time OFAC has focused on sovereign cryptocurrency. It ascribed the use of sovereign backed cryptocurrencies as a high-risk vector for US sanctions circumvention. Executive Order (EO) 13827, which was issued on March 19, 2018, explicitly stated:

In light of recent actions taken by the Maduro regime to attempt to circumvent U.S. sanctions by issuing a digital currency in a process that Venezuela’s democratically elected National Assembly has denounced as unlawful, hereby order as follows: Section 1. (a) All transactions related to, provision of financing for, and other dealings in, by a United States person or within the United States, and digital currency, digital coin, or digital token, that was issued by, for, or on behalf of the Government of Venezuela on or after January 9, 2018, are prohibited as of the effective date of this order.

On March 19, 2018, OFAC issued FAQs 564, 565 and 566, which were specifically focused on Venezuela issued cryptocurrencies, stating that “petro” and “petro gold” are considered a “digital currency, digital coin, or digital token” subject to EO 13827. While OFAC has not issued specific FAQs or guidance on other sovereign backed cryptocurrencies, it may be concerned that a series of countries have stated publicly that they plan to test and launch sovereign backed securities, including Russia, Iran, China, Japan, England, Sweden, Australia, the Netherlands, Singapore and India. With the release if its most recent FAQs, OFAC is reaffirming that it views sovereign cryptocurrencies as highly risky and well within the scope of US sanctions programs.

The reference to a “digital representation of fiat currency” appears to be a reference to “stablecoins.” In theory, stablecoins are each worth a specified value in fiat currency (usually one USD each). Most stablecoins were touted as being completely backed by fiat currency stored in segregated bank accounts. The viability and safety of stablecoins, however, has recently been called into question. One of the biggest players in the stablecoin industry is Tether, who was recently fined $41 million by the US Commodities Futures Trading Commission for failing to have the appropriate fiat reserves backing its highly popular stablecoin US Dollar Token (USDT). OFAC appears to have taken notice and states in its FAQ that “digital representations of fiat currency” are covered by its regulations and FAQs.

FAQ 646 provides some guidance on how cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers should implement a “block” on virtual currency. Any US persons (or persons subject to US jurisdiction), including financial institutions, are required under US sanctions programs to “block” assets, which requires freezing assets and notifying OFAC within 10 days. (See: 31 C.F.R. § 501.603 (b)(1)(i).) FAQ 646 makes clear that “blocking” obligations applies to virtual currency and also indicates that OFAC expects cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers be required to “block” the virtual currency at issue and freeze all other virtual currency wallets “in which a blocked person has an interest.”

Depending on the strength of the anti-money laundering/know-your-customer (AML/KYC) policies employed, it will likely prove difficult for cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers to be sure that they have identified all associated virtual currency wallets in which a “blocked person has an interest.” It is possible that a cryptocurrency exchange could onboard a customer who complied with an appropriate risk-based AML/KYC policy and, unbeknownst to the cryptocurrency exchange, a blocked person “has an interest” in one of the virtual currency wallets. It remains to be seen how OFAC will employ this “has an interest” standard and whether it will take any cryptocurrency exchanges or other service providers to task for not blocking virtual currency wallets in which a blocked person “has an interest.” It is important for cryptocurrency exchanges or other service providers to implement an appropriate risk-based AML/KYC policy to defend any inquiries from OFAC as to whether it has complied with the various US sanctions programs, including by having the ability to identify other virtual currency wallets in which a blocked person “has an interest.”

UPDATED SANCTIONS COMPLIANCE GUIDANCE

OFAC’s recent framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments outlines five essential components for a virtual currency operator’s sanctions compliance program. These components generally track those applicable to more traditional financial institutions and include:

  1. Senior management should ensure that adequate resources are devoted to the support of compliance, that a competent sanctions compliance officer is appointed and that adequate independence is granted to the compliance unit to carry out their role.
  2. An operative risk assessment should be fashioned to reflect the unique exposure of the company. OFAC maintains both a public use sanctions list and a free search tool for that list which should be employed to identify and prevent sanctioned individuals and entities from accessing the company’s services.
  3. Internal controls must be put in place that address the unique risks recognized by the company’s risk assessment. OFAC does not have a specific software or hardware requirement regarding internal controls.
    1. Although OFAC does not specify required internal controls, it does provide recommended best practices. These include geolocation tools with IP address blocking controls, KYC procedures for both individuals and entities, transaction monitoring and investigation software that can review historically identified bad actors, the implementation of remedial measures upon internal discovery of weakness in sanction compliance, sanction screening and establishing risk indicators or red flags that require additional scrutiny when triggered.
    2. Additionally, information should be obtained upon the formation of each new customer relationship. A formal due diligence plan should be in place and operated sufficiently to alert the service provider to possible sanctions-related alarms. Customer data should be maintained and updated through the lifecycle of that customer relationship.
  4. To ensure an entity’s sanctions compliance program is effective and efficient, that entity should regularly test their compliance against independent objective testing and auditing functions.
  5. Proper training must be provided to a company’s workforce. For a company’s sanctions compliance program to be effective, its workforce must be properly outfitted with the hard and soft skills required to execute its compliance program. Although training programs may vary, OFAC training should be provided annually for all employees.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

As noted in OFAC’s press release issued simultaneously with the updated FAQ’s, “[t]hese actions are a part of the Biden Administration’s focused, integrated effort to counter the ransomware threat.” The Biden administration’s increased focus on regulatory and enforcement action in the virtual currency space highlights the importance for market participants and service providers to implement a robust compliance program. Cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers must take special care in drafting and implementing their respective AML/KYC policies and in ensuring the existence of risk-based AML and sanctions compliance programs, which includes a periodic training program. When responding to inquiries from OFAC or other regulators, it will be critical to have documented evidence of the implementation of a risk-based AML/KYC program and proof that employees have been appropriately trained on all applicable policies, including a sanctions compliance policy.

Article By Joseph B. Evans, Edward B. Diskant, and Alexandra C. Scheibe of McDermott Will & Emery.

Ethan Heller, a law clerk in the firm’s New York office, also contributed to this article.

© 2021 McDermott Will & Emery
For the latest in Financial, Securities, and Banking legal news, read more at the National Law Review.

A Flurry of CFTC Actions Shock the Cryptocurrency Industry

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sent shockwaves across the cryptocurrency industry when it issued a $1.25 million settlement order with Kraken, one of the industry’s largest market participants. The next day, the CFTC announced that it had charged each of 14 entities for offering cryptocurrency derivatives and margin trading without registering as a futures commission merchant (FCM). While the CFTC has issued regulatory guidance in the past and engaged in some regulatory enforcement activities, it has now established itself as a key regulator of the industry along with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury). Market participants should be aware that the CFTC will continue to take a more active role in regulation and enforcement of commodities and derivatives transactions moving forward.

The CFTC alleged that each of the defendants were acting as an unregistered FCM. Under Section 1a(28)(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the Act), 7 U.S.C. § 1(a)(28)(A), an FCM is any “individual, association, partnership, or trust that is engaged in soliciting or accepting orders for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery; a security futures product; a swap . . . any commodity option authorized under section 6c of this title; or any leverage transaction authorized under section 23 of this title.” In order to be considered an FCM, that entity must also “accept[] money, securities, or property (or extends credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure any trades or contracts that result or may result therefrom.” (See: 7 U.S.C. § 1(a)(28)(A)(II).) 7 U.S.C. § 6d(1), requires FCMs to be registered with the CFTC.

IN DEPTH

THE KRAKEN SETTLEMENT

On September 28, 2021, the CFTC issued an order, filing and settling charges against respondent Payward Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Kraken for offering margined retail commodity transactions in cryptocurrency—including Bitcoin—and failing to register as an FCM. Kraken is required to pay a $1.25 million civil monetary penalty and to cease and desist from further violations of the Act. The CFTC stated that, “This action is part of the CFTC’s broader effort to protect U.S. customers.”

The CFTC’s order finds that from approximately June 2020 to July 2021, Kraken violated Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a)(2018) by offering to enter into, entering into, executing and/or confirming the execution of off-exchange retail commodity transactions with US customers who were not eligible contract participants or eligible commercial entities. The CFTC also found that Kraken operated as an unregistered FCM in violation of Section 4d(a)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(1) (2018). According to the order, Kraken served as the sole margin provider and maintained physical and/or constructive custody of all assets purchased using margins for the duration of a customer’s open margined position.

Margined transactions worked as follows: The customer opened an individual account at Kraken and deposited cryptocurrency or fiat currency into the account. The customer then initiated a trade by selecting (1) the trading pair they wished to trade, (2) a purchase or sale transaction and (3) a margin option. All trades were placed on Kraken’s central limit order book and executed individually for each customer. If a customer purchased an asset using margin, Kraken supplied the cryptocurrency or national currency to pay the seller for the asset. If a customer sold an asset using margin, Kraken supplied the cryptocurrency or national currency due to the buyer. Trading on margin allowed the customer to establish a position but also created an obligation for the customer to repay Kraken at the time the margined position was closed. The customer’s position remained open until they submitted a closing trade, they repaid the margin or Kraken initiated a forced liquidation based on the occurrence of certain triggering events, including limitations on the duration of an open margin position and pre-set margin thresholds. Kraken required customers to exit their positions and repay the assets received to trade on margin within 28 days, however, customers could not transfer assets away from Kraken until satisfying their repayment obligation. If repayment was not made within 28 days, Kraken could unilaterally force the margin position to be liquidated or could also initiate a forced liquidation if the value of the collateral dipped below a certain threshold percentage of the total outstanding margin. As a result, actual delivery of the purchased assets failed to occur.

The CFTC asserted that these transactions were unlawful because they were required to take place on a designated contract market. Additionally, by soliciting and accepting orders for, and entering into, retail commodity transactions with customers and accepting money or property (or extending credit in lieu thereof) to margin these transactions, Kraken was operating as an unregistered FCM.

Coinciding with the release of the enforcement action against Kraken, CFTC Commissioner Dawn D. Sump issued a “concurring statement.” In it, she appeared to be calling upon the CFTC to adopt more specific rules governing the products that are the subject of the enforcement action. Commissioner Sump seemed to indicate that it would be helpful to cryptocurrency market participants if the CFTC clarified its position on the applicability of the Act, as well as registration requirements. The CFTC will likely issue guidance or rules to clarify its position on which cryptocurrency-related products trigger registration requirements.

CFTC CHARGES 14 CRYPTOCURRENCY ENTITIES

On September 29, 2021, the CFTC issued a press release and 14 complaints against cryptocurrency trading platforms. The CFTC is seeking a sanction “directing [the cryptocurrency platforms] to cease and desist from violating the provisions of the Act set forth herein.” Each of the platforms have 20 days to respond.

All of the complaints are somewhat similar in that the CFTC alleges that each of the cryptocurrency platforms “from at least May 2021 and through the present” have offered services to the public “including soliciting or accepting orders for binary options that are based off the value of a variety of assets including commodities such as foreign currencies and cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, and accepting and holding customer money in connection with those purchases of binary options.”

The CFTC has taken the position that “binary options that are based on the price of an underlying commodity like forex or cryptocurrency are swaps and commodity options as used in the definition of an FCM.” (The CFTC has previously taken the position that Bitcoin and Ethereum constitute “commodities,” doing so in public statements and enforcement actions.) In a prominent enforcement action previously filed by the CFTC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the court held that “virtual currency may be regulated by the CFTC as a commodity” and that it “falls well-within the common definition of ‘commodity’ as well as the CEA’s definition of commodities.” (See: CFTC v. McDonnell, et al., 287 F. Supp. 3d 213, 228 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2018); CFTC v. McDonnell, et al., No. 18-cv-461, ECF No. 172 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2018).) In the action the CFTC filed against BitMEX in October of 2020, it alleged that “digital assets, such as bitcoin, ether, and litecoin are ‘commodities’ as defined under Section 1a(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9). (See: CFTC v. HDR Global Trading Limited, et al., No. 20-cv-8132, ECF 1, ¶ 23 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020).)

The CFTC has previously taken the position that Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin are considered commodities. However, in these recently filed complaints, the CFTC did not appear to limit the cryptocurrencies that would be considered “commodities” to just Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin. Instead, the CFTC broadly referred to “commodities such as foreign currencies and cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin.” It remains to be seen which of the hundreds of cryptocurrencies on the market will be considered “commodities,” but it appears that the CFTC is not limiting its jurisdiction to just three. It is also an open question as to whether there are certain cryptocurrencies or cryptocurrency referencing financial products that the SEC and CFTC will determine are subject to the overlapping jurisdiction of both regulators, similar to mixed swaps under the derivatives rules.

The CFTC also singled out two of these cryptocurrency platforms, alleging that they issued false statements to the effect that it “is a registered FCM and RFED with the CFTC and member of the NFA.” The CFTC noted that neither of these entities were ever registered with the National Futures Association (NFA) and one of the NFA ID numbers listed “identifies an individual who was once registered with the CFTC but has been deceased since 2009.”

WHAT’S NEXT

While the SEC, Treasury and DOJ are often considered the most prominent federal regulators in the cryptocurrency space, this recent sweep by the CFTC is not the first time it has flexed its muscles. The CFTC went to trial and won in 2018, accusing an individual of operating a boiler room. In October 2020, the CFTC filed a case against popular cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX for failing to register as an FCM, among other counts. However, unlike those one-off enforcement actions, the recent actions targeting multiple market participants within two days is a big step forward for the CFTC. Cryptocurrency derivative trading has been rising in popularity over the last few years and it is unsurprising that the CFTC is taking a more active enforcement role.

It is expected that regulatory activity within the cryptocurrency space will increase from all US regulators, including the CFTC, SEC, Treasury and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, especially as cryptocurrency products are increasingly classified as financial products subject to regulation. While the CFTC and other regulators have issued some regulatory guidance, regulators appear to be taking a “regulatory guidance by enforcement action” strategy. Market participants will need to thoughtfully consider all relevant regulatory regimes in order to determine what compliance activities are necessary. As we describe, multiple classifications are possible.

© 2021 McDermott Will & Emery
For more on cryptocurrency litigation, visit the NLR Cybersecurity, Media & FCC section.

Agencies and Regulators Focus on AML Compliance for Cryptocurrency Industry

This year, regulators, supported by a slate of new legislation, have focused more of their efforts on AML violations and compliance deficiencies than ever before. As we have written about in the “AML Enforcement Continues to Trend in 2021” advisory, money laundering provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021 (the NDAA) expanded the number of businesses required to report suspicious transactions, provided new tools to law enforcement to subpoena foreign banks, expanded the AML whistleblower program, and increased fines and penalties for companies who violate anti-money laundering provisions. The NDAA, consistent with Treasury regulations, also categorized cryptocurrencies as the same as fiat currencies for purposes of AML compliance.

In addition, as discussed in the “Businesses Must Prepare for Expansive AML Reporting of Beneficial Ownership Interests” advisory, the NDAA imposed new obligations on corporations, limited liability companies, and similar entities to report beneficial ownership information. Although the extent of that reporting has not yet been defined, the notice of proposed rulemaking issued by FinCEN raises serious concerns that the Treasury Department may require businesses to report beneficial ownership information for corporate affiliates, parents and subsidiaries; as well as to detail the entity’s relationship to the beneficial owner. Shortly after passage of the NDAA, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stressed that the Act “couldn’t have come at a better time,” and pledged to prioritize its implementation.

Money laundering in the cryptocurrency space has attracted increased attention from regulators and the IRS may soon have an additional tool at its disposal if H.R. 3684 (the bipartisan infrastructure bill) is signed into law. That bill includes AML provisions that would require stringent reporting of cryptocurrency transactions by brokers. If enacted, the IRS will be able to use these reports to identify large transfers of cryptocurrency assets, conduct money laundering investigations, and secure additional taxable income. Who qualifies as a “broker,” however, is still up for debate but some fear the term may be interpreted to encompass cryptocurrency miners, wallet providers and other software developers. According to some cryptocurrency experts, such an expansive reporting regime would prove unworkable for the industry. In response, an anonymous source from the Treasury Department told Bloomberg News that Treasury was already working on guidance to limit the scope of the term.

In addition to these legislative developments, regulators are already staking their claims over jurisdiction to conduct AML investigations in the cryptocurrency area. This month, SEC Chair Gary Gensler, in arguing that the SEC had broad authority over cryptocurrency, claimed that cryptocurrency was being used to “skirt our laws,” and likened the cryptocurrency space to “the Wild West . . . rife with fraud, scams, and abuse” — a sweeping allegation that received much backlash from not only cryptocurrency groups, but other regulators as well. CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintez, for example, tweeted in response: “Just so we’re all clear here, the SEC has no authority over pure commodities . . . [including] crypto assets.” Despite this disagreement, both regulatory agencies have collected millions of dollars in penalties from companies alleged to have violated AML laws or BSA reporting requirements. Just last week, a cryptocurrency exchange reached a $100 million settlement with FinCEN and the CFTC, stemming from allegations that the exchange did not conduct adequate due diligence and failed to report suspicious transactions.

With so many governmental entities focused on combatting money laundering, companies in the cryptocurrency space must stay abreast of these fast-moving developments. The combination of increased reporting obligations, additional law enforcement tools, and heightened penalties make it essential for cryptocurrency firms to institute strong compliance programs, update their AML manuals and policies, conduct regular self-assessments, and adequately train their employees. Companies should also expect additional regulations to be issued and new legislation to be enacted in the coming year. Stay tuned.

©2021 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Is A Corporation’s Address A Trade Secret?

“Cryptocurrency” is a hybrid word form from the Greek adjective, κρυπτός, meaning hidden, and the Latin participle, currens, mean running or flowing.  The word “currency” is also derived from currens, perhaps based on the idea that money flows from one person to the next in an economy.  Literally, cryptocurrency, is secret money.  But there are secrets and there a secrets.

Recently, a cryptocurrency exchange sued one of its employees for violating the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. § 1831-39.  Among other things, the company alleged that the erstwhile employee had disclosed the “physical address” of the company in a complaint filed in a state court action.  Until now, I had never considered that a company’s physical address might be a secret.  The company argued that “keeping its physical address secret serves to protect it from ‘physical security threats,’ providing as an example of such threats ‘a recent spate of kidnappings’ of persons who work for cryptocurrency exchanges”.  Payward, Inc. v. Runyon, U.S. Dist.

Judge Maxine M. Chesney ruled for the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had failed to allege how its competitors would gain an economic advantage by knowing the company’s address.  Accordingly, Judge Chesney found that the plaintiff had not pled that the address met the definition of a trade secret under the DTSA.

I was somewhat nonplussed by the idea of an office address being a secret (trade or otherwise).  After all, the plaintiff, a Delaware corporation, had filed a Statement of Information with the California Secretary of State disclosing the address of its principal executive office (which is the same as its principal executive office in California).  That filing is a readily accessible public record.  It may be, however, that the address disclosed by the defendant was for another location not disclosed in the Statement of Information.

Etymologists use the term “hybrid word” to refer to a word that is formed by the combination of words from two different languages.  Greek-Latin hybrids are the most common form of hybrids in English.  English does have hybrids formed from other languages.  For example, “chocoholic” is a hybrid formed from New and Old World languages – Nahuatl, xocolatl, and Arabic, اَلْكُحُول (al-kuḥūl).  

© 2010-2020 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
For more articles on corporate law, visit the National Law Review Corporate & Business Organizations section.

Uncle Sam Wants to Protect Blockchain Technology

On August 27, 2020, the head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (“DOJ”), Makan Delrahim, spoke at the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Innovation Economics and emphasized that one of the DOJ’s top priorities is to protect innovation and ensure that antitrust laws do not act as an impediment to the burgeoning cryptocurrency market.  COVID-19 has illuminated the importance of innovative solutions, as businesses develop new ways to operate during the pandemic. In particular, Delrahim highlighted blockchain as an innovative technology that the DOJ seeks to protect because of its potential to topple existing monopoly structures.

Blockchain technology is essentially a shared ledger of information and transactions that is distributed across a number of computers on the network, the ledger updates with every transaction on each computer and is viewable by anyone with access to that particular blockchain at any time.  In traditional networking solutions, the company that owns or controls the network infrastructure (the intermediary) may be able to raise the cost of doing business on the network as it becomes larger.  In contrast, blockchain technology can operate a network without a centralized intermediary, resulting in potentially lower networking costs and limiting the concentration of market power.

Although blockchain technology offers tremendous value, Delrahim also underscored the potential for abuse.  He noted that those with current market power could use blockchain technology in an anti-competitive manner. This is particularly a concern with closed or permissioned blockchain networks where only insiders are allowed to operate a computer on the network. For example, seafood harvesters could collusively condition access to a permissioned blockchain, which tracks useful supply chain data, on agreeing to certain prices or output.  Such collusive activity would cause tremendous harm to competition and consumers.

In an effort to combat such potentially anticompetitive activities, Delrahim noted that the DOJ is taking proactive measures to understand how emerging technologies work and how they can affect competition. The Antitrust Division has implemented a new initiative to train its attorneys and economists in innovative technologies such as blockchain technology, machine learning, and artificial intelligence, to prepare itself for monopolists who may take advantage of these new technologies.

Delrahim’s speech is an acknowledgement that the DOJ looks favorably on innovative technologies, in particular blockchain solutions.  The DOJ wants to protect and promote the growth of these technologies by combating anticompetitive behavior.  Delrahim’s speech is also an important signal that the DOJ is focused on potentially anti-competitive applications of blockchain technology.  Any group of firms that are considering working together in developing a blockchain technology solution in their industry should take appropriate precautions to make sure their activities do not constitute a violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
For more articles on Cryptocurrency, visit the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet section.

Under Siege from the SEC, Steven Seagal Ponies Up to Settle Charges for Promoting an Initial Coin Offering

Steven Seagal just learned the hard way that, unlike the title of his 1988 police action movie, he is not Above the Law. Unfortunately for the prolific action movie star, the SEC took notice of his recent actions and was Out for Justice. In order to avoid a Maximum Conviction, the SEC recently announced that Seagal made the Executive Decision to settle charges brought by the agency related to the actor’s failure to disclose the nature, scope, and amount of compensation he received for promoting an investment in an initial coin offering (ICO) conducted by Bitcoiin2Gen.

The SEC has taken the position that cryptocurrency coins/tokens may qualify as “securities,” and celebrities or other individuals who promote cryptocurrency may run afoul of the federal securities laws if they fail to make adequate disclosures of the compensation they received in exchange for the promotion. One could think of this as a Code of Honor, but the SEC calls it the anti-touting provisions of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, Section 17(b) states:

It shall be unlawful for any person . . . to publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice . . . or communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof.

This broad language makes the anti-touting provision The Perfect Weapon for the SEC to go after issuers who seek to use well-known individuals to promote risky cryptocurrency products to vulnerable populations. Indeed, the SEC has previously used this provision to go after other celebrities for similar conduct, including boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. and music producer DJ Khaled.

Seagal found himself in the Belly of the Beast when he promoted the ICO on his social media accounts and issued a press release titled “Zen Master Steven Seagal Has Become the Brand Ambassador of Bitcoiin2Gen.” He also permitted the company to issue a press release that included a quote demonstrating his strong endorsement. In exchange for this publicity, Seagal was promised $250,000 in cash and $750,000 of the company’s coins.

As a result of the settlement, Seagal was ordered to pay over $330,000 in disgorgement, civil penalties, and interest. Seagal also agreed not to promote any security for a period of three years. With Exit Wounds this severe for the well-known movie star, this case should serve as a stark reminder that the SEC is committed to examining all aspects of ICOs and cryptocurrencies with a careful eye. If the SEC catches wind of similar conduct by other celebrities, future cases could be Hard to Kill.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.

For more on the SEC Segal settlement see the National Law Review Securities & SEC law section.

Cryptocurrency is At The Center of Multi-Million Dollar Investment Security and Commodities Fraud

The Criminal Division of the IRS arrested Swedish businessman Roger Nils-Jonas Karlsson, for allegedly operating a fraudulent pension plan using cryptocurrency. Karlsson allegedly used fake websites “registered to a fictitious person” to advertise shares of a “Pre-Funded Reversed Pension Plan” (PFRPP). The criminal complaint states that Karlsson allegedly invited potential investors to buy shares of this plan at $98 per share. In exchange, Karlsson promised to eventually return 1.15 kilograms of gold per share to the shareholder as return on investment. In early 2019, 1.15 kilograms of gold was worth $45,000, making investors in the plan a 460 percent return for each share owned. The plan’s investors made payments using virtual currencies, also known as cryptocurrency. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin prominent cryptocurrencies and were allegedly used to pay Karlsson. With the assistance of his company, Eastern Metal Securities, Karlsson allegedly defrauded victims into losing more than $11 million.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not regulate cryptocurrencies, which are considered risky. The lack of regulation makes it sometimes impossible to get cryptocurrency refunded from fraudulent transactions because banks or government organizations do not guarantee these currencies. In cases where a company or individual commits securities or commodities fraud against the government, private citizens often play an essential role by acting as whistleblowers.

© 2019 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP

More on cryptocurrency enforcement actions via the National Law Review Criminal Law & Business Crimes page.

Japan’s New Crypto Regulation – 2019 Amendments to Payment Services Act and Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan

Japan will fundamentally change its crypto asset regulations effective in spring of 2020.

In May, 2019, the National Diet, the Japanese national legislature, passed an amendment bill to the Payment Services Act (the “PSA”) and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (the “FIEA”), which was promulgated on June 7, 2019 (the “2019 Amendment”).  The 2019 Amendment will become effective within one year from promulgation, following further rulemaking by the Japan Financial Services Agency (the “JFSA”) to implement the 2019 Amendment, which is anticipated sometime soon and includes public comment process.

Key Takeaways of the 2019 Amendment

The 2019 Amendment, coming into force within one year of the promulgation, will bring certain significant and fundamental changes to how crypto assets are regulated in Japan.  Key takeaways are:

  • Crypto asset margin trading and other crypto asset derivative transactions will become subject to Japanese regulations on derivative transactions generally.  Broker-dealers and exchanges will likely need to revisit and update their registration status and policies and procedures.  While it may be possible to rely on a limited grandfathering provision for 6 months after the effective date, a notification must be submitted to a relevant local Finance Bureau within two weeks after the effective date of the 2019 Amendment.
  • Certain crypto assets distributed through distributed ledger technologies (such as blockchain) will be expressly regulated as Type I securities.  Consequently, solicitation and offering of such crypto assets, including Initial Coin Offerings, to Japanese investors will require careful review and structuring to avoid any regulatory pitfalls.
  • Crypto asset-related custodial activities will be subject to licensing.
  • Crypto asset trading activities will be subject to various prohibitions on unfair trading and practices.
  • A detailed rulemaking process will follow and involve opportunities to submit comments during the public consultation process.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

ARTICLE BY Tsuguhito Omagari of K&L Gates.
More on cyprocurrency regulation on the National Law Review Financial Institutions & Banking law page.

Five Tips to Mitigate Risk in Cryptocurrency Mergers and Acquisitions

Congratulations!

Your client just closed on the purchase of a cutting-edge, blockchainbased payment processing startup. Before this deal, you had heard of bitcoin and blockchain. But, you had never seen a company that actually accepted payment in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. You were a little confused by the whole idea. However, your client liked the prospect of purchasing a company that had dealt in digital assets, so you didn’t think much about it.

Arriving to the office the day after the closing, you open up your computer to learn news of a hack at one of the big bitcoin exchanges. The article explains that hackers had accessed the hot wallets on the exchange and made off with over $150 million in digital assets. News of the hack sent the price of bitcoin tumbling 15% in the four hours following the incident. Other digital assets had plunged even further. The headline jumped out at you because the company that your client just purchased used custodial wallets on the exchange to store a lot of its digital assets.

Five minutes after you finish reading the article, you get a call from your client. Sure enough, a good chunk of the digital assets that your client had just purchased were lost in the hack. To make matters worse, the new company had just lost 5 percent of its book value because of the crashing cryptocurrency market.

Volatility of Digital Assets Means Risk

The world of cryptocurrencies has matured somewhat. But, scenarios like the previous hypothetical above remain a real possibility. Indeed, 15 percent price swings in a matter of hours are still common for cryptocurrencies, also known as digital assets, especially for less established currencies. In addition to big price swings, the digital asset industry continues to face regulatory uncertainty, especially in the United States with the SEC, CFTC, FINRA and other regulators undecided about how exactly to regulate digital assets. Despite the volatility and regulatory ambiguity, for risk hungry participants, the potential for large gains has helped drive an increase in merger activity in the digital asset world during the past two years.

Acquiring or selling a company that deals heavily in digital assets presents a litigation risk. Many of the factors that increase the risk of litigation in mergers or acquisitions in the digital asset industry are outside the control of the parties to a transaction. Deal lawyers try to control for these externalities but, in the new and vibrant realm of companies who deal in cryptocurrencies, those controls can be elusive, which in turn enhances the risk of litigation.

There are, however, ways to minimize the chance of a dispute. The following are a few practical tips for transactional lawyers and litigators to help contain the risks inherent in digital asset M&As.

    • Valuation Methodology: Transaction and litigation counsel should pay close attention to valuation methods used in a digital asset transaction. Cryptocurrencies and digital tokens are new and the methods used to value them may be untested. Different digital assets have different applications, e.g., utility tokens versus value storage tokens, and valuation theories should be tailored to the transaction and assets involved. In light of these unique issues and the attendant risks, transactional lawyers should give particular scrutiny to the valuation formulas to avoid a dispute. Litigators, too, should take note of the valuation methods used since they may be fodder for a dispute. And, of course, litigators should also be aware of the possibility for a Daubert-type challenge of any expert valuation witness that may arise in a subsequent dispute.
    • Earn-Outs/Purchase Price Adjustments: Transactional lawyers should pay special attention to earn-out or purchase price adjustment provisions in a digital asset M&A deal. Valuating digital assets is difficult; thus, inclusion of an earn-out or purchase price adjustment clause might help the parties reach a deal more easily. Given the volatility of digital assets, there is a higher than typical likelihood that the value of the earn-out or purchase price adjustment will also fluctuate substantially. Litigators, in turn, should also be especially cognizant of earn-out and purchase price adjustment provisions. Earn-out provisions can be especially ripe for dispute since the earn-out periods often extend for years after closing. While long earn-out periods might not present problems in more traditional fields, the fast pace of change and high levels of volatility in the digital asset industry mean that long earn-out periods are particularly susceptible to disagreement.
    • Reverse Break Up Fees: Transactional lawyers should consider including a reverse breakup fee or a reverse termination fee. These are fees paid by the buyer if the buyer breaches the governing agreements or is unable to close the transaction. For example, imagine you represent the seller in a deal set to close in three days when news breaks about a lawsuit filed by a state attorney general against a new cryptocurrency company. The enforcement action sends the price of all digital assets plummeting by 20 percent in a matter of hours. Your client still meets all of the closing conditions, but the client’s value, which consists largely of digital assets, has just taken a huge hit and the buyer’s counsel is telling you that her client is going to walk away from the deal unless your client drops the price. A reverse breakup fee will help to lessen the buyer’s willingness to run from the transaction and may also help your client recoup costs incurred in the event the buyer does walk away. Litigators representing a buyer or seller should also pay particular attention to whether the conditions in a breakup fee or reverse breakup fee clause have been satisfied.
  • Heightened Importance of Stock Terms: Transactional lawyers should give extra consideration to the applicable law and venue selection provisions in the deal documents. Some states, e.g., Wyoming, among others, have adopted more crypto-friendly regulatory regimes than other states. Consequently, transaction lawyers should consider the pros and cons of each viable state law. And, corporate attorneys should consider obtaining review of deal documents by experienced cryptocurrency litigators who can help position the transaction as best as possible in case of future litigation.
  • Last, transaction lawyers should consider the appropriateness of a mandatory arbitration provision. Arbitration has its drawbacks, e.g., the cost of the arbitrator, absence of clear rules for discovery, restricted appeal rights, etc., but the benefits of arbitration may be particularly helpful when dealing with a digital asset M&A dispute. For example, the parties can make their proceedings confidential, which can avoid the disclosure of trade secrets or other proprietary information in public court proceedings. Further, in the highly technical field of cryptocurrencies, the parties have greater latitude to ensure that the proceeding is adjudicated by an arbitrator with pertinent knowledge of and/or experience in digital assets or blockchain technology.

Of course, the foregoing is not an exhaustive list of the ways to reduce risk in digital asset M&A deals. Other terms and conditions in the transaction contracts for a digital asset M&A deal should not escape scrutiny. Representations and warranties, contract exhibits and schedules should be tailored to the deal and the nature of digital assets in play. Due diligence is also an especially important component of risk mitigation since the nature of digital assets makes for a more difficult diligence process than a traditional transaction. Regardless of which contractual provisions are used, litigators and transactional lawyers should both be aware of and understand the heightened risk of a dispute in the volatile world of cryptocurrencies and digital assets.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

ARTICLE BY Thomas H. Wagner of Polsinelli PC.
For more on cryptocurrency, see the Financial Institutions & Banking law page on the National Law Review.