Ripple vs SEC Update: In a dramatic twist in the Ripple-SEC legal saga, the SEC’s latest filing has stirred new controversy. For context, in a recent filing, Ripple highlighted a recent court ruling regarding Binance to argue against the SEC’s proposed penalties.

Following this, the US SEC filed its response to Ripple’s notice. The move has intensified debates over regulatory clarity and enforcement as Ripple pushes back against what it sees as overreaching of the SEC’s powers.

Ripple vs SEC Update: SEC Responses Challenging Ripple

Ripple vs SEC has escalated with the SEC’s recent response to Ripple’s latest filing. Ripple cited a recent ruling in the SEC’s case against Binance, aiming to bolster its position against the SEC’s proposed penalties. However, the SEC’s filing rejects Ripple’s reliance on this ruling as irrelevant to the current proceedings.

In its response, the SEC criticized Ripple’s use of the Binance decision to argue for lesser penalties. In particular, the SEC argued that Ripple’s conduct and the context of the Binance case are markedly different.

Additionally, the filing noted that Ripple’s claim that the Binance ruling supports its position lacks substance, arguing that the court’s comments on the SEC’s litigation strategy in Binance do not justify lesser penalties for Ripple. Furthermore, the SEC emphasized that Ripple had acted with “reckless disregard for the law” and that the Binance ruling does not mitigate Ripple’s violations.

However, crypto attorney Bill Morgan commented on the SEC’s frustration, suggesting that the SEC’s language indicates that they disagree with the Binance decision being used against them. He noted that the SEC often dismisses decisions they don’t like as having “no authority.”

Meanwhile, the SEC’s latest filing also highlighted that, contrary to Ripple’s claims, the court in the Binance case rejected the fair notice defense, similar to what happened in Ripple’s case. Furthermore, the SEC pointed out that the Binance ruling found the fair notice argument unpersuasive, underscoring that the digital asset industry has been on notice since the SEC’s 2017 DAO report.

The report was seen as a major warning to the industry about the regulatory framework for digital assets, undermining Ripple’s claim that there was a lack of due process.

Also Read: Coinbase Files Complaint Against SEC Blocking Gary Gensler Info in Court

Lawyers weigh in after Binance case referred

Ripple’s recent filing was aimed at influencing the court’s decision in the Binance lawsuit, arguing that it underscores the need for regulatory clarity. Ripple suggested that the Binance ruling supports the notion that existing securities laws do not seamlessly apply to cryptocurrencies.

This argument is in line with Ripple’s broader strategy of pushing for more tailored regulation for digital assets, separate from traditional securities laws like the 1946 Howey Test. Notably, Jeremy Hogan, a partner at Hogan & Hogan, criticized the SEC’s response as evasive.

He argued that the SEC had failed to provide substantive reasons for disagreeing with Ripple’s interpretation of the Binance ruling. Instead, the SEC merely indicated its disagreement without further explanation, a tactic Hogan described as frustratingly common in legal disputes.

He further urged more concrete arguments from the SEC, reflecting the broader sentiment in the cryptocurrency community for clearer regulatory reasoning. Ripple’s reference to the Binance case is intended to highlight inconsistencies in the SEC’s approach to digital asset regulation.

By citing the court’s observation that cryptocurrencies do not fit neatly into existing securities frameworks, Ripple is seeking to bolster its case for lower fines and more precise regulatory guidance. The move underscores the industry’s ongoing calls for clarity from regulators to ensure fair enforcement and compliance.

Also Read: BitMEX Expands Support for Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, Pepe Coin, and Others, Here’s How