> These guys are going to prison.
It will be interesting where, if, or how.
The SEC attempted to establish jurisdiction over Do Kwon and Terraform Labs late last year but failed spectacularly.
It will be interesting where, if, or how.
The SEC attempted to establish jurisdiction over Do Kwon and Terraform Labs late last year but failed spectacularly.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/03/sec-adds-to-cryptocurrency-r...
The effort that produced this order in their favor in February? https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/02/18/terra-ceo-do-kw...
How did they fail?
US courts have regularly exercised jurisdiction over parties located outside of the US.
You are correct.
If Do Kwon decides to visit the US and hasn't complied, he may find himself getting arrested. If his company decides to have assets in the US, they may be seized. However until either of those things happen, which they won't*, then the US has zero teeth in this.
* assuming he doesn't visit the US again
Wrong. They served the subpoena first; they need no permission to do that. Then SEC sued to enforce the subpoena, and the SEC prevailed in their suit.
Then Do Kwon and Terraform applied to have enforcement of the subpoena stayed by the trial court pending appeal, and failed; they then attempted to get the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to stay the subpoena pending appeal, and failed, and currently are in the process of litigating the case before the Second Circuit.
To portray this as a case where the SEC has failed (spefctacularly or otherwise) to establish jurisdiction is false.
The incentives are thankfully lower here, though.
If you look closely at that statement, however, you can see that it's recursive and missing the base case: the rule which says "If they sold to the US investors they have to abide by US rules" is itself a US rule.
In Terraform's case, it looks like they're in Singapore. Which the US does indeed have an extradition treaty with.
Obviously the extradition treaties have limits.
Here's the countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...
It's not hard, in theory, but it does rather limit your movements going forward.
Here’s a recent example - https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56248558
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-15000-international-extradit...
If the applicable treaty or convention does not obligate the United States to extradite its citizens to a foreign country, the Secretary of State may, nevertheless, order the surrender to that country of a United States citizen whose extradition has been requested by that country if the other requirements of that treaty or convention are met.
I genuinely don't know where Snowden sits on that - I think he serves as a useful demonstration of the power of Russia and the failings of the US, but obviously know nothing.
On the other hand, a failed crypto bro who has taken oligarch money and can't repay it with interest. I think that is going to be the very definition of a "Russian Holiday".
[1] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/02/18/terra-ceo-do-kw...
In summary: the judge agreed with the SEC. The subpoena is being enforced.
At risk of being excessively pedantic, there's generally the motion, the response, and then movants' reply, and then the judge's order. Sometimes the brief and the motion are separate documents (particularly when you're moving for a temporary restraining order or the like). So that's generally 4, not 3, documents that you'd expect to see.
Also, different courts have different rules on what the appropriate font is. There are some jurisdictions that explicitly prescribe a list of acceptable fonts (e.g., apparently Connecticut gives you a choice between Arial and Univers), and Times New Roman isn't necessarily on that list.
Re the number, that's why I said "at least three". The point I'm making is that it is practically never 2, so one should not conclude that the SEC lost simply because another story appeared that seemed to contradict its view. You have to wait for the one that actually says it's a judge's orders, counting is not my proposed method.
As for the font, sure. It was just another way of saying "official-seeming", I'm trying to encourage people to look past the official-ness because all the filings look pretty similar and you do have to read the title. Nevertheless in the federal courts (except SCOTUS) and in California, which are the cases you see most often on HN, it seems to be Times New Roman everywhere.