5 ms·

> A federal judge ordered Ripple to pay $125 million in civil penalties and imposed an injunction against future securities law violations on Wednesday. What d

> A federal judge ordered Ripple to pay $125 million in civil penalties and imposed an injunction against future securities law violations on Wednesday. What does an injunction against future violations mean? Why would that be weightier than the criminal legal code? Shouldn't such an injunction be assumed by pretty much everybody doing anything?

superb_dev 2y ago
I’m assuming it’s like probation for an individual
nullc 2y ago
A lot of these things don't have serious consequences attached to the rule, so by ordering the party to comply they get the penalties of contempt attached.
- infamouscow 2y ago
  And the judge has sole discretion with how much jail time you get for contempt (within reason).
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    And that can be more than a decade, if you keep doing the thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick
    - rvnx 2y ago
      14 years in jail, the guy actually really probably had lost this money in bad investment :| such a sad story.
      - zamadatix 2y ago
        The time behind bars seems wrong on many levels but I'm having a hard time understanding/sympathising the guy's position beyond the "contempt of court is a poor fit for assigning punishment for this kind of thing and you can't just keep someone locked up on suspicion they did something wrong you have to use a real pre-existing law and prove it". Losing your entire fortune isn't impossible by any means, even coincidentally right when your wife announces she wants a divorce, but you'd think he'd have a more forthright explanation for why there is no record (person, investment contact, business record on the other side, etc) to point to anywhere for his 2.5 million dollar exchange. The only reasons I can think to not are ones that also explain why he'd rather take contempt of court charge than say what happened (illegal investments, purposefully losing the money, hiding the money, trying to do one of these things and being conned). For that reason I definitely feel the guy shouldn't have been jailed but I don't really feel bad for the guy as in he got screwed by bad luck or something.
      - MadnessASAP 2y ago
        I'm curious what sort of bad investment he made that left no paper trail as to where the money went. Did he have no evidence whatsoever? Or was the evidence unconvincing? The judge who released him also noted that they believed Mr. Chadwick could pay the owed amount but that it was clear keeping him in prison wasn't going to make that happen
        rvnx 2y ago
        I found the story: https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209&page=1 At the end, I think his bad investment was to pick his ex-wife. I think.
  - nullc 2y ago
    Yes, but you more or less cannot extradite for contempt. So, this penalty is mooted if they simply take the billions they've extracted from the general public and relocate to another country.
tsunamifury 2y ago
It’s poorly written. The injunction is against further institutional sales (what they were accused of possibly doing in a way that was illegal) with out explicit review per sale.
gexla 2y ago
I the words of Humpty in the Humpty Dance... "Alright, stop what you're doin' 'cause I'm about to ruin." Seems to me that this is a fast changing space of product offerings vs adaptation of regulations. Some transactions violated, some did not. Some planned future Ripple developments could cross the line. Seems that Ripple just needs to continue working the system, so the regulations catch up and give the entire space some guidance on what they can and can't do. Overall a positive development. The penalty was reduced from something like 2Bs and XRP jumped 20% on the news.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

superb_dev 2y ago

I’m assuming it’s like probation for an individual

nullc 2y ago

A lot of these things don't have serious consequences attached to the rule, so by ordering the party to comply they get the penalties of contempt attached.

infamouscow 2y ago
And the judge has sole discretion with how much jail time you get for contempt (within reason).
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  And that can be more than a decade, if you keep doing the thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick
  - rvnx 2y ago
    14 years in jail, the guy actually really probably had lost this money in bad investment :| such a sad story.
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      The time behind bars seems wrong on many levels but I'm having a hard time understanding/sympathising the guy's position beyond the "contempt of court is a poor fit for assigning punishment for this kind of thing and you can't just keep someone locked up on suspicion they did something wrong you have to use a real pre-existing law and prove it". Losing your entire fortune isn't impossible by any means, even coincidentally right when your wife announces she wants a divorce, but you'd think he'd have a more forthright explanation for why there is no record (person, investment contact, business record on the other side, etc) to point to anywhere for his 2.5 million dollar exchange. The only reasons I can think to not are ones that also explain why he'd rather take contempt of court charge than say what happened (illegal investments, purposefully losing the money, hiding the money, trying to do one of these things and being conned). For that reason I definitely feel the guy shouldn't have been jailed but I don't really feel bad for the guy as in he got screwed by bad luck or something.
    - MadnessASAP 2y ago
      I'm curious what sort of bad investment he made that left no paper trail as to where the money went. Did he have no evidence whatsoever? Or was the evidence unconvincing? The judge who released him also noted that they believed Mr. Chadwick could pay the owed amount but that it was clear keeping him in prison wasn't going to make that happen
      - rvnx 2y ago
        I found the story: https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209&page=1 At the end, I think his bad investment was to pick his ex-wife. I think.
- nullc 2y ago
  Yes, but you more or less cannot extradite for contempt. So, this penalty is mooted if they simply take the billions they've extracted from the general public and relocate to another country.

tsunamifury 2y ago

It’s poorly written. The injunction is against further institutional sales (what they were accused of possibly doing in a way that was illegal) with out explicit review per sale.

gexla 2y ago

I the words of Humpty in the Humpty Dance... "Alright, stop what you're doin' 'cause I'm about to ruin." Seems to me that this is a fast changing space of product offerings vs adaptation of regulations. Some transactions violated, some did not. Some planned future Ripple developments could cross the line. Seems that Ripple just needs to continue working the system, so the regulations catch up and give the entire space some guidance on what they can and can't do. Overall a positive development. The penalty was reduced from something like 2Bs and XRP jumped 20% on the news.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]