Türkçe
Español
Cryptocurrency exchange Kraken has officially requested a jury trial in its ongoing legal battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
SEC’s Allegations and Kraken’s Response
Last November, the SEC accused Kraken of operating as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, dealer, and clearing agency. Earlier this year, Kraken petitioned the U.S. District Court to dismiss these allegations, contending that the SEC’s claims would expand the definition of investment contracts and exceed the regulator’s authority.
U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick rejected Kraken’s request last month, stating that the SEC had made a reasonable claim that some cryptocurrency transactions facilitated by Kraken constituted investment contracts and thus securities. On Thursday, Kraken submitted a new document to the court, requesting a jury trial and responding to the SEC’s complaint.
“For over a decade, we have operated without any indication from regulators that we violated securities laws.”
Evaluation of Digital Assets as Investment Contracts
Kraken noted that the SEC had refused to clarify which cryptocurrency transactions it classifies as investment contracts until last year.
“In fact, in 2021, the SEC Chairman told Congress, ‘There is no regulatory framework for exchanges trading these crypto assets, and the only entity that can truly address this framework gap is Congress.’”
“Digital assets themselves cannot be investment contracts as they do not carry the rights and obligations associated with stocks, bonds, or any financial assets subject to SEC regulation. The only things traded, brokered, or cleared at Kraken are digital assets themselves.”
SEC’s Alleged Securities
The SEC argues that Kraken sold over 11 “crypto asset securities” on its platform and claims that it should have registered with the regulator. Among these alleged securities are Cardano 
$0.748699 (ADA), Algorand (ALGO), Cosmos (ATOM), and Solana 
$168 (SOL).
This legal struggle between Kraken and the SEC highlights the uncertainty surrounding the regulation of cryptocurrencies and digital assets once again. Industry representatives argue that the lack of a clear regulatory framework stifles innovation while regulators strive to fulfill their duty to protect investors. This case may set a precedent for how cryptocurrency exchanges‘ operations are classified and regulated, potentially shaping future legal approaches.
