Judge Fines Ripple $125 Million, Bans Future Securities Law Violations (coindesk.com) 12
Nikhilesh De writes via CoinDesk: A federal judge ordered Ripple to pay $125 million in civil penalties and imposed an injunction against future securities law violations on Wednesday. District Judge Analisa Torres, of the Southern District of New York, imposed the fine (PDF) after finding that 1,278 institutional sale transactions by Ripple violated securities law, leading to the fine. The $125.035 million fine is well below the $1 billion in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and $900 million in civil penalties the SEC sought. Wednesday's order on remedies follows the judge's July 2023 ruling in the case itself, finding that Ripple violated federal securities laws through its direct sale of XRP to institutional clients, though she also ruled that Ripple's programmatic sales of XRP to retail clients through exchanges did not violate any securities laws. The SEC tried unsuccessfully to appeal that portion of the ruling while the case was ongoing.
Banned from violating the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF does "imposed an injunction against future securities law violations" even mean? Is it like, double-illegal to violate the law now?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Double Secret Probation [youtube.com]
Re:Banned from violating the law? (Score:5, Informative)
WTF does "imposed an injunction against future securities law violations" even mean?
This is a case of a stupid journalist rather than a stupid judge.
The judge declined to rule that the direct sales were illegal but felt they were close enough to the line that she prohibited Ripple from making additional direct sales without prior public disclosure. The journalist mangled that into the above sentence.
Anyway, I'm not sure why this is "News for Nerds".
Re: (Score:2)
"This is a case of a stupid journalist rather than a stupid judge."
And a stupid /. editor that copies stupid claims without any editorial consideration.
"...but felt they were close enough to the line that she prohibited Ripple from making additional direct sales without prior public disclosure."
While imposing a "penalty" of 5 cents on the dollar for past damage. Some deterrence!
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, slashdot hasn't actually edited content in many, many years. The closest they get to that descriptor is approving or rejecting submissions based on... Uh...
I don't really know what criteria, to be honest...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
8,000,000,000 people
/ 7 transactions per second
/ 60 seconds per minute
/ 60 minutes per hour
/ 24 hours per day
/ 365.25 days per year
= 36 years
For everybody to just create a Lightning Wallet assuming otherwise empty blocks.
Some people want NgU, some want Human Liberation.
We are not the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyway, I'm not sure why this is "News for Nerds".
Ripple is a blockchain company.
Yeah, I know, it's a tenuous connection, even on a slow news day.
Re:Banned from violating the law? [like SBF] (Score:3)
Because the nerds are creating the tools driving the BS-mobile.
Recommended reading is Going Infinite by Michael Lewis. Pretty sure this particular company got a number of mentions, though the focus is on SBF.
But I actually thought you were going for funny. Turned out you only inherited the Subject and his joke didn't really land.
Re: (Score:1)
It's like double-secret probation, or a triple dog dare.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF does "imposed an injunction against future securities law violations" even mean? Is it like, double-illegal to violate the law now?
=Smidge=
Came to say exactly this. It's like "we had a law, but now there's a law against breaking the first law".
Then again, we ARE talking about financial law here - so whoever has the finances makes the law, I guess.
Maybe it's like bowling - line up ten laws and see how many we can knock down. As Fred Flintstone used to say, "Steeeeeeerike!"
Ripple (Score:5, Funny)