The Ripple vs dry trial took another round a few weeks before the deadline of June 16 for an update of the status of the Court. Justin W.
Keener, a figure previously designed a fine of $ 10 million by the SEC for illegal Penny’s action exchanges, returned with an emergency request that he has “decisive evidence” which could modify the result of the trial in favor of Ripple.
This marks Keener’s second attempt to deposit evidence in the high -level cryptographic case, which focuses on the question of whether XRP qualifies as security.
The XRP community and legal experts reacted to the file, some questioning its legitimacy and other curious calendar and content.
Despite the expectations that the court will probably reject the request, the deposit has nevertheless reopened its debates around the approach of the SEC to the application of cryptography and the legal classification of digital tokens like XRP.
Legal history behind Keener’s participation
Copy the link to the section
Justin Keener, who operated under the name of JMJ Financial, was penalized by the SEC in 2023 for acting as a non -registered merchant and executed billions of transactions involving Penny shares.
The SEC allegedly alleged that Keener gave himself up to more than 100 illegal offers, which caused a fine of $ 10 million and restrictions on future financial activities.
Despite this context, Keener has now submitted an unauthorized second file to the court, contesting the fundamental use of the dry test of the Howey test – the legal reference used to determine whether an asset is considered to be security.
His motion would include a criticism of the history of the application of the law on the last 90 years, specifically targeting inconsistencies in the way in which “investment contracts” have been interpreted.
The first deposit by Keener was dismissed, and the SEC previously raised concerns about the reason why its EPCER account – a system of judicial deposit – was not handicapped despite the unauthorized nature of these requests.
The latter movement, however, added a new layer of complexity to a case already considered a bell tower for cryptographic regulations in the United States.
Ripple Dry defies on secondary market rules
Copy the link to the section
In addition to Keener’s motion, Ripple submitted a letter to the dry reiterating that XRP should not be considered as a guarantee in sales of the secondary market.
The letter refers to Lewis Cohen’s legal research and a court decision in 2023, which both maintain that digital fungible assets do not carry the legal attributes of securities when they are publicly negotiated.
Ripple maintains that the lack of regulatory clarity harms both innovation and the protection of investors in the space of digital assets.
The letter also refers to the judge analyzed Torres to the decision that XRP does not qualify as a guarantee of programmatic sales to the public.
This decision was considered a partial victory for Ripple, although the larger implications for issuers and chip exchanges remain unstable.
The company has urged the dry to revise its framework to align itself with the evolution of market dynamics, suggesting that existing laws are inadequate to approach the complexities of digital assets.
Copy the link to the section
The latest development aroused a debate among crypto enthusiasts and legal observers.
XRP lawyer and lawyer Bill Morgan noted that even if he expected deposits before the June update, he did not provide for the tone of the deposit or his aggressive criticism of long -standing legal interpretations.
The former regional director of the SEC, Marc Fagel, recognized the nature of the request and questioned the mercy of the Court towards unauthorized bids.
Although most legal experts do not expect the court to entertain Keener’s allegations, this decision injected uncertainty in what was to be a relatively silent advance on the deadline.
The case has already drawn global attention due to its implications for the future of the regulation of cryptography and the wider classification of the assets based on blockchain.
Whether Keener’s evidence is recognized or ignored, the moment of the motion has added pressure on the dry to clarify its regulatory position and respond to growing calls for transparency.
