Featured image from iStock, chart from Tradingview.com<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently filed an interlocutory appeal following Judge Analisa Torres\u2019 ruling in favor of Ripple. However, an attorney and crypto enthusiast Greg Beuke believes the SEC made a mistake in appealing the decision.\u00a0 SEC Misunderstood Judge Torres\u2019 Ruling\u00a0 Reacting to the news that the SEC had filed a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal, Beuke stated that the regulator \u201cfundamentally misunderstands\u201d the ruling. According to him, the Judge didn\u2019t rule programmatic sales cannot constitute investment contracts.\u00a0\u00a0 Related Reading: Ethereum Whale Avoids Market Crash, Do They Know Something You Don\u2019t? He explained that Judge Torres only ruled that programmatic sales didn\u2019t constitute investment contracts in this particular case because the SEC failed to establish that XRP investors who bought over exchanges did so, hoping they would profit from Ripple\u2019s efforts. The SEC also failed to adduce any significant evidence to bolster its case. Beuke highlighted that the agency didn\u2019t provide any \u201csingle XRP holder\u201d who said he expected to profit from Ripple\u2019s venture despite that being the basis of the SEC\u2019s argument. Instead, it relied on \u201ccherry picked statements from Ripple & select employees,\u201d which the attorney believes was inadequate to discharge the burden of proof placed on the SEC. Beuke further called the SEC\u2019s move of an interlocutory appeal a \u201chuge strategic mistake.\u201d Usually, a party appealing a final ruling can interpret it in a way that bolsters its argument without the Judge who gave the ruling being able to clarify why it made such a judgment.\u00a0 However, in this case, the SEC filed an interlocutory appeal (an appeal before a final order is made) which allows Judge Torres to clarify her ruling and probably put a dent in the SEC\u2019s case, as Beuke argues. He believes that the Judge will make it clear that the SEC failed to discharge its burden of proof.\u00a0 XRP price continues to decline | Source: XRPUSD on Tradingview.com SEC To Lose Its Appeal In Ripple Case? Beuke pointed out that no new evidence can be adduced upon appeal, and neither can the SEC make new arguments. As such, the 2nd circuit will only have the records to work with, and going by it, the regulator provided little or no evidence to prove its case.\u00a0 Related Reading: The $200 Million BNB Bridge Exploiter Just Got Liquidated On Venus While the appeal court might be inclined to accept the SEC\u2019s underlying argument that XRP\u2019s programmatic sales did indeed constitute an investment contract, Beuke has stated the court will avert its mind to Judge Torres\u2019 ruling, which was based \u201con the undisputed factual record,\u201d which shows that the SEC failed to prove its case. The SEC is likely to lose as it was expected to prove that a \u201creasonable retail XRP purchaser was aware of Ripple and relied on Ripple\u2019s efforts for profits.\u201d Furthermore, Ripple seems to have a more solid case as the SEC had no reply to affidavits of XRP holders, which prominent XRP lawyer John Deaton brought forward. Featured image from iStock, chart from Tradingview.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":594,"featured_media":548197,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16894],"tags":[3680,17209,3799,89165,89166,4531,83637],"class_list":["post-548191","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ripple","tag-ripple","tag-ripple-news","tag-sec","tag-sec-appeal","tag-sec-interlocutory-appeal","tag-xrp","tag-xrp-news"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Experts Explain Why SEC\u2019s Interlocutory Appeal In Ripple Case Was A Mistake<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n