Crypto Clash: Kraken's Legal Odyssey

On an eventful Monday, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) made a legal move against Kraken, the cryptocurrency exchange, unveiling a voluminous 90-page lawsuit. This legal action not only places Kraken under the regulatory microscope but also aligns it with a select group of crypto heavyweights currently navigating the intricate web of SEC investigations.

Within the sprawling lawsuit, Kraken faces a litany of accusations, ranging from securities law violations to the commingling of customer funds with corporate assets, a precarious dance that introduces substantial risks for both stakeholders.

The SEC's Ongoing Regulatory Crusade

In a parallel narrative shared through an official SEC press release, Kraken's role comes to light as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, dealer, and clearing agency in the U.S. dating back to 2018. The company, in a complex tapestry, seamlessly interweaves traditional financial services, offering a snapshot of the evolving regulatory landscape.

The specific allegations against Kraken revolve around the unlawful accumulation of nine-figure profits by facilitating the trading of crypto asset securities. This echoes the legal symphony played out against industry peers Coinbase and Binance in June, featuring a familiar cast of "crypto asset securities" and introducing new players such as ALGO, ATOM, COTI, MANA, and OMG.

Gurbir S. Grewal, the SEC's enforcement director, delivered a stern message: "Kraken's pursuit of ill-gotten gains at the expense of investor protection is an unfortunate recurrence in the industry. Today, our actions aim not only to hold Kraken accountable but also to broadcast a resounding call for others to align with established regulatory norms."

In their defense, both Binance and Coinbase vehemently rejected claims of listing securities on their platforms, accusing the SEC of an overbroad interpretation of securities laws. Binance went so far as to draw comparisons between cryptocurrencies within investment contracts and everyday commodities like oranges or trading cards, emphasizing their distinction from investment contracts inherently tied to profit expectations.

Adding a Layer of Legal Discourse

Patent lawyer Sandy Seth weighed in, asserting that the SEC's arguments lack merit in the cases against Kraken and Coinbase. He emphasized the fundamental requirement of financial interest in a company for an investment contract, drawing a clear line between such contracts and non-securities like sports tickets or art.

Delving into the intricacies of Kraken's financial practices, the SEC highlighted concerns about the co-mingling of customer assets, pointing to inadequate internal accounting practices that jeopardized funds. The regulator underscored the internal auditor's apprehensions, citing a "significant risk of loss" for customers. Allegedly, as of December 31, 2021, Kraken held a substantial $33.6 million worth of customer fiat within its corporate accounts.

The SEC contends that Kraken's lackadaisical internal controls paved the way for accounting deficiencies related to customer assets in 2020 and 2021, only brought to light in August of this year. The regulator attributes these errors to Kraken's poor recordkeeping practices and failure to accurately record margin transactions.

Notably, this legal saga is not Kraken's first encounter with the SEC, as the company settled charges amounting to $30 million in February, related to its staking-as-a-service product, which the SEC deemed an unregistered security.

Read more: Bitcoin Ballet: Navigating the Consolidation Waltz and Supply Symphony