3 ms·
>The analogy for finance, my industry, would be a hedge fund registered in the Caymans either trading US securities or trading with Americans in the United Stat
by mcantelon 15y ago
>The analogy for finance, my industry, would be a hedge fund registered in the Caymans either trading US securities or trading with Americans in the United States (it gets sketchy if an American citizen comes to Switzerland to do a transaction) not getting to ignore SEC rules just because they're "not based in the US".
That comparison doesn't seem to quite fit. If a company violated SEC rules it would have to be trading through a US exchange and would therefore have agreed to abide by US rules. In this case we have US users who are breaking the law by doing something illegal in their own country. They should be punished, not the foreign website.
- JumpCrisscross 15y agoIf a company violated SEC rules it would have to be trading through a US exchange Not necessarily. If ABN AMRO markets Turkish bonds to US investors it will have placed itself under SEC jurisdiction just as much as Lehman Brothers marketing mini-bonds in Indonesia placed itself under Indonesian jurisdiction. The US government has gone further with financial institutions. Take, for example, the Swiss banks helping Americans with tax evasion. Let's exclude those with US branches, e.g. UBS. Here you have American citizens travelling to Switzerland and opening accounts and the Swiss company is held responsible merely for doing business with an American. I'm not making specific arguments on whether this is jurisdictional over-reach, but characterising the .com seizure in the OP an un-precedented move by Luddite judges isn't fair.