Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Crypto Platform Settles SEC and State Regulator Charges over Interest Bearing Feature on Customer Accounts

By Moorari Shah, A.J. Dhaliwal, Mehul Madia & Maxwell Earp-Thomas on February 16, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Law-of-the-Ledger-Blog-Image-Cryptocurrency-660x283

On February 7, a Florida-based cryptocurrency company agreed to settle charges brought by the SEC and the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation alleging that, an interest-earning feature offered on the company’s platform, constitutes an illegal securities offering.

The earning feature allowed investors to deposit crypto assets in an account on the company’s platform. In exchange, the company would deploy the deposited assets to generate revenue which accrued to the account. The company rolled out the lending product in 2020, pitching it as a way for investors to “Put your crypto assets to work for you.” The product, however, was voluntarily abandoned in 2022. 

In its order the SEC found that the lending product constituted the offering and sale of an “investment contract,” which is a security under the Supreme Court’s Howey test. See SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 301 (1946). In its order, SEC found that the lending product violated the 1933 Securities Act which prohibits the offering of unregistered securities. In a parallel action, the DFPI entered a consent order by which the company settled a DFPI-led investigation into the crypto lending product. The company settled federal and state regulators’ charges to the tune of $1.5 million each.

Putting it into Practice: This enforcement action is emblematic of the proactive stance the SEC and many other regulators have taken on crypto and blockchain-based products. “Investment contracts” is interpreted to include many crypto-based financial products. In particular, regulators have targeted crypto products offering users the chance to passively generate interest income (discussed here and here). Providers of crypto-based financial products and services have also attracted the scrutiny of the CFPB, the FTC, and other regulators, both state and federal, for concerns surrounding payments, banking, and money-laundering among others (discussed here, here, here, and here). Market participants offering crypto-based financial products should operate with heightened caution in a murky legal environment where regulators have shown a willingness to regulate through enforcement.

Photo of Moorari Shah Moorari Shah

Moorari Shah is a partner in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Los Angeles and San Francisco offices.

Read more about Moorari ShahEmail
Photo of A.J. Dhaliwal A.J. Dhaliwal

A.J. is a partner in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about A.J. DhaliwalEmail
Photo of Mehul Madia Mehul Madia

Mehul Madia, special counsel in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, provides deep consumer finance and fintech expertise to clients, leveraging more than 15 years’ of public and private sector experience.

Read more about Mehul MadiaEmail
Photo of Maxwell Earp-Thomas Maxwell Earp-Thomas

Max is an associate in the Finance & Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Orange County office.

Read more about Maxwell Earp-ThomasEmail
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    Consumer Finance and Fintech Blog
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo