US SEC Probes Erik Voorhees’ Salt Lending
Salt Lending, a crypto loan startup created by Erik Voorhees, which also acted as a board member of the company, has been under investigation by the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
According to the Wall Street Journal, sources familiar with the probe are saying that the company was subpoenaed by the SEC in February because of the Initial Coin Offering (ICO) that the company had in late 2017, in which it was able to raise over $50 million USD. [Rumors: Salt Lending Exit Scam]
The SEC understands that the crypto fundraising event was a securities offering and that it should have been registered with the SEC instead of using the unregulated ICO way. Many tokens at the time were distributed to “insiders” and the sales proceeded without regulation.
Voorhees Was Charged In The Past
Voorhees has a history of not following the regulation of the United States. He was previously charged by the SEC in 2014 for violating the securities law which led him to be banned from a Bitcoin security for the following five years in the country. He was also fined $50,000 USD.
At the time, the SEC determined that Voorhes has, just like now, publicly offered securities without properly registering, which foreshadowed the future of the company that he is involved in. The SEC understands that Salt Lending violated the 2014 ban, so Voorhees will possibly be charged once more for the issues that he has with the law.
The first case happened between 2012 and 2013 when Voorhees publicly offered securities without registering. At the time, it was some Bitcoin-based features like SatoshiDICE and FeedZeBirds that caused him to have problems with the government.
While the SEC has officially declined to comment on the issue, there is a big chance that it might decide that Voorhees indeed violated his ban.
Voorhees’ lawyer, Brian Klein, has affirmed that he is proud to represent the entrepreneur and that he is a real visionary who abides by his SEC settlement terms. He called the Wall Street Journal story an unfair attack on him and affirmed that the allegations are not true.
I am proud to represent @ErikVoorhees, a real visionary, who has abided by his SEC settlement terms. This @WSJ story is an unfair attack on him relying on unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous sources, and he is not even a party to the lawsuit discussedhttps://t.co/ouoB3ghTAb
— Brian Klein (@brianeklein) November 16, 2018
The feud between Voorhees and the media has started a long time ago. The WSJ has affirmed recently, in September 2018, that ShapeShift, the company which Voorhees is a CEO of, has been used by criminals to launder $9 million USD. Voorhees has claimed at the occasion that the claims were inaccurate and that the work of the WSJ was deceptive.
Only future may tell what will happen to Voorhees, but his situation is far from very good right now as he is involved in his fair share of scandals and might be prosecuted by the SEC. Despite what will happen to him, however, it is certain that Salt Crypto Loans is in deep trouble now.
Erik has gone on the defense against this latest WSJ article and published his own rebuttal:
— Erik Voorhees (@ErikVoorhees) November 16, 2018
Here are the three points he drives home to refute the WSJ article:
First, I am not a party to the private lawsuit brought against Salt by a former CFO of the company, filed a few days ago and the apparent basis of this story rushed into print.
Second, I have abided by the terms of my SEC settlement.
Third, the Wall Street Journal has not dealt with me or my company ShapeShift in good faith and this recent story is simply an unfortunate continuation of that trend. As an example, the Wall Street Journal ignored evidence provided to demonstrate the ways in which ShapeShift took regulatory compliance seriously. What they prefer to do, instead, is rehash the point that I am not fond of fiat currency. Again, this is not news, nor is it relevant to legal matters having little or nothing to do with me like the Salt lawsuit.
What are your thoughts on this? Did the WSJ rush something to print for the headlines or was this a direct attack on Erik Voorhees? Leave your comment below