SEC announces lawsuit against Telegram, Inc. and Ton Issuer, Inc. in connection with the “continuing illegal offer of valuable securities in the form of a digital asset called Gram. " According to the SEC, project tokens are securities that are subject to registration requirements in the US securities laws.
There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the buyer and subsequent investors expect to profit from Telegram, secondly, there are no products or services that can be bought using Grams, thirdly, investors expect to make a profit when creating such a Telegram.
As part of the lawsuit, the SEC states that Telegram “has committed to flood the US capital markets with billions of Gram by October 31.”
Remember, during a private sale, Telegramraised $ 1.7 billion from 171 investors using a simple agreement for future tokens. The team allegedly used these funds to "capitalize their business and finance the creation of the blockchain."
SEC reports that $ 424.5 million in revenue fromsales came from American investors, and that the defendants are going to sell more to the Americans. This violates the requirements for registration of the Securities Act of 1933 and gives them the right to an immediate court decision.
Why is the lawsuit filed in federal court?
This lawsuit was filed with the US federal court. The reason for this may be that (according to the Order of the Court, which was prepared by the SEC), Telegram refused to accept the subpoena from the SEC. If so, it is not surprising that the SEC appealed to the federal court for quick and emergency assistance.
According to one Telegram investor, the company thought it could avoid the SEC by making adjustments to make it more “decentralized.”
US resident investor said in a telephoneConversation with The Block, as he expects, the action of the SEC will lead to an even longer blocking of tokens. He expects that trading will not be authorized in the US, but also suggested that Telegram could follow in the footsteps of Blockstack.
However, the investor was disappointed that the SEC discouraged "technological innovation."