Federal Court Just Ruled CFTC Can Regulate Crypto—But Agency Isn't Alone
“Every agency wants to feel like they have a say in this growing ecosystem that is developing," one attorney said.
March 08, 2018 at 11:16 AM
4 minute read
Photo credit: Diego Radzinschi/ALM.
A federal judge in New York ruled this week that virtual currencies can be regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
So now that a court has deemed the CFTC has jurisdiction over bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, much like it oversees gold and oil, what will the effects be on this quickly emerging sector?
While many lawyers who work with virtual currencies find the ruling to be significant, they also emphasized that the 79-page order doesn't mean the CFTC will be the only sheriff in town when it comes to overseeing cryptos.
Tuesday's ruling from U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York provided some clarity on issues that companies and lawyers in the crypto space have been considering for some time.
The CFTC sued Patrick McDonnell and his company CabbageTech Corp. in January, alleging fraud and misappropriation connected to cryptocurrency purchases. Pro se litigant McDonnell attempted to have the suit thrown out for lack of jurisdiction, but the judge ruled in favor of the CFTC.
Weinstein provided answers to two burning questions: Is virtual currency a commodity and does the CFTC have jurisdiction over fraud that does not directly involve the sale of futures or derivative contracts? Yes, on both accounts, Weinstein wrote.
“CFTC has standing to exercise its enforcement power over fraud related to virtual currencies sold in interstate commerce,” Weinstein wrote.
A CFTC spokeswoman declined to comment on the judgment, but added, “We will just let the order speak for itself.”
The CFTC has taken other enforcement actions in recent months against companies and individuals believed to have defrauded investors in the virtual currency space, and Chairman Christopher Giancarlo recently testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on how Congress could be involved in creating legislation around cryptocurrency.
James Walker, an attorney at Richards Kibbe & Orbe, found Weinstein's ruling to be “a win for securities regulators by providing a stronger basis for asserting jurisdiction by multiple regulators without diminishing any single regulator's power.”
Walker said it is noteworthy that the ruling does not contradict the 2014 Internal Revenue Service determination that virtual currencies are property. He added that while virtual currency at times operates like regular currency it “does not have legal tender status.”
According to Edward Baer, counsel at Ropes & Gray, just because the court ruled that the CFTC can regulate cryptocurrency, doesn't mean there won't be others policing this area as well. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton has also adamantly argued that cryptocurrencies, in many cases, should be considered securities.
“The challenge for cryptocurrency exchanges and investors, as well as for regulators such as the SEC and CFTC, will be to determine which of the over 1,000 types of these cryptocurrencies are securities and which ones are not,” Baer said in an email. “Given that the test used to determine whether an instrument is a security was developed more than 60 years before Satochi Nakamoto published the paper describing bitcoin, the uncertainty around the regulatory treatment of most cryptocurrencies will remain despite Judge Weinstein's ruling.”
Nimish Patel, a partner and vice chairman of Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, acknowledged the ruling does give guidance to the markets, but is quick to warn companies that they may also have to answer to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
“I think startups are on notice you're going to have to deal with multiple regulatory bodies,” Patel said. “Every agency wants to feel like they have a say in this growing ecosystem that is developing.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
- 1GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
- 2Authenticating Electronic Signatures
- 3'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
- 4Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 5A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250