Ripple: Crypto Lawyer Explains Flaws in SEC Allegations Against XRP

[ad_1]

Crypto attorney Jeremy Hogan has shared his thoughts on the SEC case against Ripple. Hogan pointed out the flaws in the SEC’s citation of the Howey test.

Popular crypto attorney Jeremy Hogan recently took to Twitter to share his thoughts on the controversial Securities and Exchange Commissions lawsuit against Ripple.

Hogan, who is a partner at Hogan & Hogan, paid close attention to the arguments and allegations made by the Wall Street regulator in court.

XRP may be an investment contract at best

In his Twitter feed, Jeremy Hogan pointed out that, according to the legislative definition of security, the possible category in which XRP can be designated is that of an investment contract.

The crypto lawyer was referring to the famous Howey test, which the securities regulator repeatedly cited in its case against Ripple. The test refers to a United States Supreme Court case that helps determine whether a transaction qualifies as an investment contract and would therefore be considered a security and subject to the country’s securities laws.

According to Hogan, the Howey test does not focus on the contractual part of the investment contract, but rather assumes that a contract existed and was required for an explicit legal agreement.

The crypto attorney argued that in the Ripples case, the SEC did not argue that there was an explicit investment contract. Instead, the regulator said the purchase agreement is all that is required.

Hogan believes that a simple purchase agreement only proves that Ripple had an obligation to transfer XRP to the buyer, with no mention of expected profits on the investment.

The question is NOT whether Ripple used the money from the sale of XRP to fund its business. The question is whether the SEC has proven that there is an implicit or explicit contract between the buyers of Ripple and XRP regarding their investment. There was no such contract, said Jeremy Hogan.

[ad_2]