Federal Judge in Crypto Proceeding Re-examines Blockvest (BLV Token) Case
In November of 2018, a California federal judge refused to approve a preliminary injunction as was requested at the time because there were a few inquiries and it was yet to be determined if, based on the Howey Test, the token in the case was a security.
However, the same judge seemed to have re-assessed the situation and has made the decision to grant a motion the SEC’s requested, for Partial Reconsideration.
Details of the Case
The SEC, at the time, had charged a few offenders on account of transacting business involving sales of securities that were unapproved and not registered. The tokens, called BLV tokens, were defended by their stakeholders with the claim that they had been pre-approved by the CFTC, the National Futures Association and even the SEC.
The accused also claimed on their website, that they had received approval from an agency called the “BEC”, although that seemed to have been fabricated.
Generally, it almost never happens that during a prosecution, a federal judge will have a change of mind. This only happens when a motion for re-examination has been put forward.
However, when a case has new evidence or laws have been changed or wrongly applied, a judge could consider a change of mind. The judge has now decided that the information on the accused’s website contained offers for transacting in unapproved tokens and this still holds water whether or not a transaction was completed. The Howey test is a divided into three parts and all three were violated.
The accused expressed their opinion that an injunction is too much of a response from the courts especially because some progress had been made regarding admittance of guilt, an addition of a proper counsel to the team and the decision for these people not to do an ICO.
However, the court did not agree especially because of the made up agency – BEC – and many other different falsities. The court also considered the possibility that the accused might not discontinue all the wrongdoings. Reactions to the case and the court rulings have been polar with some proclaiming it as appropriate while other have expressed that it might be an overreaction.