The TRON Foundation and Justin Sun request the dismissal of the SEC case, citing jurisdictional issues

Related

Revolut: the ML and AI-based system prevented scams for over €550 million

Revolut, thanks to its proprietary fraud detection system, based...

Bitcoin: what are automated teller machines and where to find them

Not everyone knows that there are Automated Bitcoin Teller...

The US Senators Lummis and Gillibrand lead a new legislation on Stablecoin

On a typical Wednesday in Washington, US Senators Cynthia...

Elevating Possibilities: The Countdown for WBS Dubai Begins!

Mark your calendars for an unparalleled gathering of blockchain...

Share

The TRON Foundation, together with its founder Justin Sun, has taken a decisive step in the ongoing legal battle with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 

In a recent filing with the District Court of the Southern District of New York, the defendants requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the SEC has not demonstrated jurisdiction over the foreign defendants.

Justin Sun wants the dismissal of the case against the SEC

“The SEC is not a global regulatory authority. Its efforts to leverage very attenuated contacts with the United States, to extend US securities laws to predominantly foreign conduct, are excessive and must be rejected,”

it reads in the note sent to the court. 

At the center of the case, dating back to March 2023, are the accusations of selling and launching unregistered securities, fraud, and market manipulation. 

The President of the SEC, Gary Gensler, at the time of filing, had accused Sun and its affiliated entities not only of targeting U.S. investors, but also of coordinating wash trading on an unregistered trading platform.

The defendants, including Sun, TRON Foundation, BitTorrent Foundation, and Rainberry, vehemently contested the jurisdictional claims. Even if the court were to establish jurisdiction, the defendants argue that the compensation claims are not valid for several reasons.

Rainberry, a registered entity in California, has taken a different stance, not contesting the jurisdiction of the court, but rather requesting dismissal for other reasons, including lack of proper notice. 

In the filing request, it stated that the SEC’s pursuit of claims related to global contests, giveaways, airdrops, and token swaps lacked clear authorization from Congress and therefore violated principles of fairness.

An excess of power according to the founder of TRON

The defendants have invoked the doctrine of major questions, a legal principle designed to limit government overreach. This doctrine suggests that regulatory agencies such as the SEC must operate within clear limits established by Congress. 

The defendants argued that the SEC’s attempt to expand its regulatory authority in the global market for digital assets without explicit authorization from Congress constitutes a transformative expansion and therefore justifies dismissal.

The legal battle between the TRON Foundation, Justin Sun, and the SEC highlights the complexities and challenges surrounding the regulation of digital assets in a global context.

As regulatory agencies seek to assert their authority over emerging technologies and markets, clashes over jurisdiction, interpretation of laws, and principles of fairness are likely to become increasingly common.

The outcome of this case will not only have significant implications for the TRON ecosystem and its stakeholders, but will also serve as a precedent for the broader cryptocurrency sector.

As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, the parties involved will closely monitor the process, recognizing the potential implications for the future of digital asset regulation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the legal dispute between the TRON Foundation, Justin Sun, and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission highlights the challenges and complexities inherent in regulating digital assets on a global scale. 

The motion of the defendants to dismiss the case for jurisdictional reasons highlights the nuances of the arguments related to regulatory authority and proper notice. 

With the continuous evolution of the cryptocurrency sector, clashes between regulatory agencies and market operators are inevitable.

The outcome of this case will not only have an impact on the TRON ecosystem, but will also set important precedents for the regulation of digital assets worldwide. 

Stakeholders in the sector will closely follow the process, recognizing the potential implications for regulatory frameworks, investor protection, and wider adoption of blockchain technology.

In the final analysis, the resolution of this legal battle will shape the future trajectory of the regulation of digital assets and will influence how regulatory agencies approach the enforcement of regulations in the rapidly evolving landscape of cryptocurrencies and blockchain innovation.