7 ms·

They are not located in the US.

by atian 4y ago

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.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > The SEC was told by a US court that they can in fact deliver a subpoena Wrong. They served the subpoena first; they need no permission to do that. Then SEC sued to enforce the subpoena, and the SEC prevailed in their suit. Then Do Kwon and Terraform applied to have enforcement of the subpoena stayed by the trial court pending appeal, and failed; they then attempted to get the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to stay the subpoena pending appeal, and failed, and currently are in the process of litigating the case before the Second Circuit. To portray this as a case where the SEC has failed (spefctacularly or otherwise) to establish jurisdiction is false.
      - davidgay 4y ago
        I think Russia might have some comment to make here on the potential reach of US/interested-parties law. The incentives are thankfully lower here, though.
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]

They are not located in the US.

by atian 4y ago

They are not located in the US.

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.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > The SEC was told by a US court that they can in fact deliver a subpoena Wrong. They served the subpoena first; they need no permission to do that. Then SEC sued to enforce the subpoena, and the SEC prevailed in their suit. Then Do Kwon and Terraform applied to have enforcement of the subpoena stayed by the trial court pending appeal, and failed; they then attempted to get the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to stay the subpoena pending appeal, and failed, and currently are in the process of litigating the case before the Second Circuit. To portray this as a case where the SEC has failed (spefctacularly or otherwise) to establish jurisdiction is false.
    - davidgay 4y ago
      I think Russia might have some comment to make here on the potential reach of US/interested-parties law. The incentives are thankfully lower here, though.

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]