5 ms·

> These guys are going to prison. It will be interesting where, if, or how. The SEC attempted to establish jurisdiction over Do Kwon and Terraform Labs late l

by atian 4y ago

> These guys are going to prison. It will be interesting where, if, or how. The SEC attempted to establish jurisdiction over Do Kwon and Terraform Labs late last year but failed spectacularly.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
They just hired another 20 people onto their crypto team, so hopefully they’re gearing up for more enforcement. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/03/sec-adds-to-cryptocurrency-regulation-staff.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/03/sec-adds-to-cryptocurrency-r...
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The SEC attempted to establish jurisdiction over Do Kwon and Terraform Labs late last year but failed spectacularly. The effort that produced this order in their favor in February? https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/02/18/terra-ceo-do-kwon-ordered-to-comply-with-sec-subpoena-related-to-mirror-protocol-investigation/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/02/18/terra-ceo-do-kw... How did they fail?
- atian 4y ago
  They are not located in the US.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    That certainly could be a factor that might contribute to the SEC failing, I’m asking for the evidence that the SEC did fail. US courts have regularly exercised jurisdiction over parties located outside of the US.
    - atian 4y ago
      > That certainly could be a factor that might contribute to the SEC failing You are correct.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        You have yet to substantiate that they failed, in any way.
        imwillofficial 4y ago
        They failed to establish jurisdiction over their intended targets.
        jahewson 4y ago
        No they did not.
        93po 4y ago
        You're both right and wrong. The SEC was told by a US court that they can in fact deliver a subpoena, so from the SEC perspective they've been given "jurisdiction". However the other side of the coin is that they've been granted permission to serve a subpoena to someone who isn't American, and to a company that doesn't have a presence in the US. If Do Kwon decides to visit the US and hasn't complied, he may find himself getting arrested. If his company decides to have assets in the US, they may be seized. However until either of those things happen, which they won't*, then the US has zero teeth in this. * assuming he doesn't visit the US again
        mythrwy 4y ago
        *Or he isn't important enough to go get.
        tialaramex 4y ago
        So the way this goes is, the Americans are patient. A week after you're hyper vigilant of course, a month after, a year after... and then 20 years later your best friend's daughter is getting married and she's insistent it has to be on Hawaii, and... next thing you know you're in handcuffs being led away by agents who weren't even born when you committed a crime.
  - adrr 4y ago
    If they sold to the US investors they have to abide by US rules. US has a bunch of extradition treaties making it very hard to run from US law enforcement.
    - cesarb 4y ago
      > If they sold to the US investors they have to abide by US rules. If you look closely at that statement, however, you can see that it's recursive and missing the base case: the rule which says "If they sold to the US investors they have to abide by US rules" is itself a US rule.
      - kemayo 4y ago
        Thus the mention of extradition treaties, which mean (to a loose approximation) that other countries agree to let some US rules get enforced on people in their borders. In Terraform's case, it looks like they're in Singapore. Which the US does indeed have an extradition treaty with.
    - themusicgod1 4y ago
      And yet, Edward Snowden still sits outside of US prison. Obviously the extradition treaties have limits.
      - ABeeSea 4y ago
        Snowden’s charges had a maximum of 10 years. If he had surrendered and pled, he would be free in America soon. Instead he gets to spend the rest of his life in Russia. That was his choice.
        feintruled 4y ago
        He could have been free - or he could have suffered a 'mishap' in prison. Not that things have ultimately worked out well for him, but I'd understood Russia was merely a stop-over from which he realised there wasn't going to ever be a safe onward option, so he's stuck.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
rmbyrro 4y ago
It seems it turned out the opposite earlier this year, didnt it? [1] [1] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/02/18/terra-ceo-do-kwon-ordered-to-comply-with-sec-subpoena-related-to-mirror-protocol-investigation/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/02/18/terra-ceo-do-kw...
- cormacrelf 4y ago
  Yep. People should learn the difference between Kwon filing an opposing statement [that may have seemed convincing] and a judge actually ruling that way. By "late last year but failed spectacularly" I think /u/atian just accepted that process story (nov/dec) as being the result, perhaps because first the SEC filed and then Kwon filed a response. Every question before the court in cases like these has at least three documents typed up in Times New Roman and looking like that. Only the last one matters, the first and second are not useful to lay folk except to indicate that things are still chugging along. In summary: the judge agreed with the SEC. The subpoena is being enforced.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    > Every question before the court in cases like these has at least three documents typed up in Times New Roman and looking like that. At risk of being excessively pedantic, there's generally the motion, the response, and then movants' reply, and then the judge's order. Sometimes the brief and the motion are separate documents (particularly when you're moving for a temporary restraining order or the like). So that's generally 4, not 3, documents that you'd expect to see. Also, different courts have different rules on what the appropriate font is. There are some jurisdictions that explicitly prescribe a list of acceptable fonts (e.g., apparently Connecticut gives you a choice between Arial and Univers), and Times New Roman isn't necessarily on that list.
    - cormacrelf 4y ago
      Yeah, a bit pedantic, each of those points was rhetorically preferable and accurate enough. Re the number, that's why I said "at least three". The point I'm making is that it is practically never 2, so one should not conclude that the SEC lost simply because another story appeared that seemed to contradict its view. You have to wait for the one that actually says it's a judge's orders, counting is not my proposed method. As for the font, sure. It was just another way of saying "official-seeming", I'm trying to encourage people to look past the official-ness because all the filings look pretty similar and you do have to read the title. Nevertheless in the federal courts (except SCOTUS) and in California, which are the cases you see most often on HN, it seems to be Times New Roman everywhere.

by atian 4y ago

> These guys are going to prison. It will be interesting where, if, or how. The SEC attempted to establish jurisdiction over Do Kwon and Terraform Labs late last year but failed spectacularly.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

They just hired another 20 people onto their crypto team, so hopefully they’re gearing up for more enforcement. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/03/sec-adds-to-cryptocurrency-regulation-staff.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/03/sec-adds-to-cryptocurrency-r...

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The SEC attempted to establish jurisdiction over Do Kwon and Terraform Labs late last year but failed spectacularly. The effort that produced this order in their favor in February? https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/02/18/terra-ceo-do-kwon-ordered-to-comply-with-sec-subpoena-related-to-mirror-protocol-investigation/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/02/18/terra-ceo-do-kw... How did they fail?

atian 4y ago
They are not located in the US.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  That certainly could be a factor that might contribute to the SEC failing, I’m asking for the evidence that the SEC did fail. US courts have regularly exercised jurisdiction over parties located outside of the US.
  - atian 4y ago
    > That certainly could be a factor that might contribute to the SEC failing You are correct.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      You have yet to substantiate that they failed, in any way.
      - imwillofficial 4y ago
        They failed to establish jurisdiction over their intended targets.
        jahewson 4y ago
        No they did not.
        93po 4y ago
        You're both right and wrong. The SEC was told by a US court that they can in fact deliver a subpoena, so from the SEC perspective they've been given "jurisdiction". However the other side of the coin is that they've been granted permission to serve a subpoena to someone who isn't American, and to a company that doesn't have a presence in the US. If Do Kwon decides to visit the US and hasn't complied, he may find himself getting arrested. If his company decides to have assets in the US, they may be seized. However until either of those things happen, which they won't*, then the US has zero teeth in this. * assuming he doesn't visit the US again
        mythrwy 4y ago
        *Or he isn't important enough to go get.
        tialaramex 4y ago
        So the way this goes is, the Americans are patient. A week after you're hyper vigilant of course, a month after, a year after... and then 20 years later your best friend's daughter is getting married and she's insistent it has to be on Hawaii, and... next thing you know you're in handcuffs being led away by agents who weren't even born when you committed a crime.
- adrr 4y ago
  If they sold to the US investors they have to abide by US rules. US has a bunch of extradition treaties making it very hard to run from US law enforcement.
  - cesarb 4y ago
    > If they sold to the US investors they have to abide by US rules. If you look closely at that statement, however, you can see that it's recursive and missing the base case: the rule which says "If they sold to the US investors they have to abide by US rules" is itself a US rule.
    - kemayo 4y ago
      Thus the mention of extradition treaties, which mean (to a loose approximation) that other countries agree to let some US rules get enforced on people in their borders. In Terraform's case, it looks like they're in Singapore. Which the US does indeed have an extradition treaty with.
  - themusicgod1 4y ago
    And yet, Edward Snowden still sits outside of US prison. Obviously the extradition treaties have limits.
    - ABeeSea 4y ago
      Snowden’s charges had a maximum of 10 years. If he had surrendered and pled, he would be free in America soon. Instead he gets to spend the rest of his life in Russia. That was his choice.
      - feintruled 4y ago
        He could have been free - or he could have suffered a 'mishap' in prison. Not that things have ultimately worked out well for him, but I'd understood Russia was merely a stop-over from which he realised there wasn't going to ever be a safe onward option, so he's stuck.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

rmbyrro 4y ago

It seems it turned out the opposite earlier this year, didnt it? [1] [1] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/02/18/terra-ceo-do-kwon-ordered-to-comply-with-sec-subpoena-related-to-mirror-protocol-investigation/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/02/18/terra-ceo-do-kw...

cormacrelf 4y ago
Yep. People should learn the difference between Kwon filing an opposing statement [that may have seemed convincing] and a judge actually ruling that way. By "late last year but failed spectacularly" I think /u/atian just accepted that process story (nov/dec) as being the result, perhaps because first the SEC filed and then Kwon filed a response. Every question before the court in cases like these has at least three documents typed up in Times New Roman and looking like that. Only the last one matters, the first and second are not useful to lay folk except to indicate that things are still chugging along. In summary: the judge agreed with the SEC. The subpoena is being enforced.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > Every question before the court in cases like these has at least three documents typed up in Times New Roman and looking like that. At risk of being excessively pedantic, there's generally the motion, the response, and then movants' reply, and then the judge's order. Sometimes the brief and the motion are separate documents (particularly when you're moving for a temporary restraining order or the like). So that's generally 4, not 3, documents that you'd expect to see. Also, different courts have different rules on what the appropriate font is. There are some jurisdictions that explicitly prescribe a list of acceptable fonts (e.g., apparently Connecticut gives you a choice between Arial and Univers), and Times New Roman isn't necessarily on that list.
  - cormacrelf 4y ago
    Yeah, a bit pedantic, each of those points was rhetorically preferable and accurate enough. Re the number, that's why I said "at least three". The point I'm making is that it is practically never 2, so one should not conclude that the SEC lost simply because another story appeared that seemed to contradict its view. You have to wait for the one that actually says it's a judge's orders, counting is not my proposed method. As for the font, sure. It was just another way of saying "official-seeming", I'm trying to encourage people to look past the official-ness because all the filings look pretty similar and you do have to read the title. Nevertheless in the federal courts (except SCOTUS) and in California, which are the cases you see most often on HN, it seems to be Times New Roman everywhere.