Ico Scams And Prosecutions
What Are ICO Scams?
An Initial Coin Offering (ICO) is a fundraising method where new cryptocurrencies or tokens are sold to investors, usually to fund a project. ICO scams involve fraudulent schemes where the promoters raise funds from investors but never deliver on promises, misrepresent the project, or outright steal the invested money.
Legal Framework Around ICO Scams
Regulators like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) treat many ICOs as securities offerings.
Laws around fraud, securities, and money laundering apply.
Prosecutions often involve charges like fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and securities violations.
Detailed Cases of ICO Scams and Prosecutions
1. SEC v. Munchee Inc. (2017) — The First ICO SEC Enforcement Action
Background: Munchee was a company that planned to create a blockchain-based restaurant review app. They launched an ICO selling “MUN tokens” promising future utility.
Issue: The SEC argued that Munchee’s tokens were securities under U.S. law, and their ICO was an unregistered securities offering.
Outcome: Munchee agreed to halt the ICO and not distribute tokens until they registered with the SEC or qualified for an exemption.
Significance: This was the SEC’s first enforcement action against an ICO, signaling that many ICOs may be subject to securities laws.
2. SEC v. Kik Interactive Inc. (2019)
Background: Kik launched an ICO in 2017, raising $100 million by selling “KIN tokens.”
Issue: The SEC alleged that Kik conducted an unregistered securities offering, as the tokens were investment contracts.
Legal Arguments: Kik argued the tokens were utility tokens, not securities.
Outcome: After lengthy litigation, Kik agreed to pay $5 million and register the tokens.
Significance: A key case defining the boundary between utility tokens and securities, highlighting that many ICOs can be securities.
3. SEC v. PlexCorps (2017) — Fraudulent ICO
Background: PlexCorps ran an ICO promising investors huge returns (up to 13,000%) in weeks.
Fraud Elements: The operators misled investors about the use of funds and the project’s viability.
Outcome: The SEC charged PlexCorps with fraud, obtained an emergency asset freeze, and later settled with disgorgement and penalties.
Significance: Demonstrates SEC’s ability to quickly act against fraudulent ICOs and protect investors.
4. United States v. Maksim Zaslavskiy (2019)
Background: Zaslavskiy launched two ICOs, “REcoin” and “Diamond,” claiming they were backed by real estate and diamonds.
Fraud Details: He falsely represented the projects, with no actual backing assets, and misled investors.
Prosecution: Charged with wire fraud and securities fraud.
Outcome: Convicted on multiple counts of fraud in federal court.
Significance: First criminal prosecution in the U.S. related to ICO fraud, setting a precedent for criminal accountability.
5. SEC v. AriseBank (2018)
Background: AriseBank claimed to be the “world’s first decentralized bank” and raised over $600 million via ICO.
Fraud Details: The founders lied about partnerships with major banks and possession of billions in cryptocurrency.
Outcome: SEC halted the ICO, charged the founders with fraud, and obtained asset freezes.
Significance: Large-scale ICO fraud involving false corporate claims and misrepresentations.
6. Bitconnect Scam (2018) — Although Not an ICO, It's a Related Crypto Fraud
Background: Bitconnect promised massive returns through a lending platform and token.
Fraud Details: The platform operated as a Ponzi scheme, with returns paid from new investor money.
Outcome: Bitconnect shut down after regulatory warnings, and various criminal investigations ensued globally.
Significance: Demonstrates risks of fraudulent crypto schemes that may not be ICOs but impact the same investor class.
Summary of Legal Lessons
Many ICOs fall under securities laws, requiring registration or exemption.
Fraudulent misrepresentation and false promises lead to criminal and civil prosecutions.
Regulators have tools like asset freezes, injunctions, and disgorgement.
Criminal charges (fraud, wire fraud) can apply, as seen in the Zaslavskiy case.
Investor protection depends on active enforcement by regulators and prosecutors.
RELATED Blog
0 comments