Ripple Hails $125 Million Fine as "Victory"
Ripple Labs CEO Brad Garlinghouse declared a "victory" for the company after a US District Court ordered Ripple to pay a civil penalty of $125 million. The SEC initially sought a $2 billion penalty for alleged sales of unregistered securities to institutional investors. (See previous coverage.)
Ripple's Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty said that "Ripple, when it was first sued by the SEC almost four years ago, said that we were going to defend this case, not only on our own behalf but on behalf of the entire crypto industry. This administration, with this SEC, under this chair, has clearly taken an anti-crypto stance and has engaged in a war on crypto that’s playing out in the courts." He went on to explain: "What the [District] court said is that a token is never a security in and of itself, just like a bar of gold is never a security. You can certainly package commodities or virtual currencies and sell them as securities, but they're not securities in themselves, and that's the core clarity that we sought in this case — establishing that XRP is not in and of itself a security is now the law of the land."
In an X post, Mr. Garlinghouse asserted: "The SEC asked for $2B, and the Court reduced their demand by ~94% recognizing that they had overplayed their hand. We respect the Court's decision and have clarity to continue growing our company. This is a victory for Ripple, the industry and the rule of law. The SEC's headwinds against the whole of the XRP community are gone." Additional posts from Ripple declared the court's decision "a step toward regulatory clarity in the U.S."
Commentary
It's not often that paying a fine of $125 million can be considered a victory for the party forced to pay. This is one.
Bitcoin and Ether are now recognized as non-securities cryptocurrencies and the SEC has no way to stop the trading of XRP. The SEC still has not explained the basis on which it determined to treat Ether as a non-security. If the SEC cannot explain the legal basis on which it brings an enforcement action against one product, but permits listing of ETFs on another, it is hard to describe the SEC's conduct as anything but regulation by enforcement.