The SEC has submitted its redacted remedies reply brief and related exhibits, setting the stage for a crucial decision that could significantly impact Ripple and the broader cryptocurrency industry.

As tensions mount, the crypto community awaits this potentially groundbreaking verdict, poised to reshape the regulatory landscape for digital assets.

SEC Highlights Continuous Risk in Ripple Case: Calls for Injunction on Future Sales

The SEC is scrutinizing Ripple’s past actions, particularly its history of selling the XRP cryptocurrency without registration, to assess the likelihood of future violations. Highlighting a persistent risk due to Ripple’s ongoing business model, the SEC points out that Ripple plans to launch another unregistered crypto asset, which could further breach securities laws. Documents reveal that Ripple’s primary business since 2013 has involved these significant unregistered transactions.

• Ripple’s History: Long-standing involvement in unregistered Over-the-Counter (OTC) Institutional Sales up to 2020.
• Legal Concerns: Despite no new violations post-2020, Ripple’s operational trends indicate potential future infractions, prompting the SEC to seek preventive measures.

SEC Argues for Injunction Against Ripple Despite Defense, Cites Past Misconduct

In their detailed response to Ripple’s defense, the SEC argues for the necessity of an injunction despite Ripple’s claim of acting without negligence due to “widespread uncertainty” about XRP’s legal status. This defense has not held in court previously, as seen in similar cases like Coinbase, where the “fair notice” defense was also rejected. The SEC points out Ripple’s historical pattern of disregarding legal guidelines, specifically their past decision to sell XRP as an investment against legal advice.

• Continued Concerns: The SEC emphasizes that Ripple’s cooperation doesn’t negate the need for an injunctive remedy due to their past conduct.
• Financial Secrecy Issues: Ripple’s non-disclosure of certain financial terms reportedly misled institutional investors, potentially skewing market conditions.