The ongoing legal battle between the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Ripple continues, as the latest development saw the SEC asking Judge Sarah Netburn to not assist in producing the Ethereum and Bitcoin documents that have been requested by Ripple.
For those who might not be aware, the SEC had filed a lawsuit against Ripple, which is a remittance payments network based in the United States. The reason for this lawsuit had regarded the use of Ripple’s XRP token and its security like functions. Ripple had denied these allegations, claiming that the XRP token does not, in fact, act as a security. However, the SEC responded, saying that Ripple had been given multiple warnings in the past, but it had refused to act upon them, therefore, resulting in the eventual lawsuit.
SEC has agreed to produce XRP documents
Ripple had recently filed a letter (pre-motion) with the purpose of forcing the disclosure of documents related to Ethereum and Bitcoin under the reasoning of plausible exculpatory evidence being withheld.
It should be mentioned, however, that the SEC has said that these documents are irrelevant to the case or Ripple’s defence. Nevertheless, email communications regarding XRP and Ripple alongside documents and exchanges from any other case where the token may be mentioned were to be brought forth by the SEC.
The SEC had decided to do this in order to hopefully reach a compromise. However, Ripple did not budge. This would then result in the aforementioned pre-motion letter being filed by the company.
Comparisons to Bitcoin will not make a difference, according to the SEC
As Ripple continues to prove that XRP is no different than either BTC or ETH, the SEC has remained defiant and claims that these comparisons to other cryptocurrencies are very unlikely to make any kind of quantifiable difference for Ripple’s defence and their case.
The SEC further elaborated that Ripple’s own words, comments and actions all prove that XRP is, in fact, quite different, and this was the reason for the filing of the original lawsuit, to begin with. Moreover, the SEC further said that just because any digital asset may resemble BTC or ETH, that does not necessarily mean that it functions as a security, though this argument has since been rejected by courts.
All trademarks, logos, and images displayed on this site belong to their respective owners and have been utilized under the Fair Use Act. The materials on this site should not be interpreted as financial advice. When we incorporate content from other sites, we ensure each author receives proper attribution by providing a link to the original content. This site might maintain financial affiliations with a selection of the brands and firms mentioned herein. As a result, we may receive compensation if our readers opt to click on these links within our content and subsequently register for the products or services on offer. However, we neither represent nor endorse these services, brands, or companies. Therefore, any disputes that may arise with the mentioned brands or companies need to be directly addressed with the respective parties involved. We urge our readers to exercise their own judgement when clicking on links within our content and ultimately signing up for any products or services. The responsibility lies solely with them. Please read our full disclaimer and terms of use policy here.