In the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s insider trading prosecution against former Coinbase workers, the SEC has once again been accused of going beyond the scope of its power and misclassifying cryptocurrencies as securities.

The US-based Chamber of Digital Commerce argued in an amicus brief filed on February 22 that the case should be dismissed because it represented an expansion of the SEC’s “rule by enforcement” campaign and seeks to characterize transactions of the secondary market such as securities transactions. The Digital Chamber of Commerce argued that the case should be dismissed because it represented an expansion of the SEC’s “regulation by enforcement” campaign.

“This case represents a stealthy but dramatic and unprecedented effort to expand the SEC’s jurisdictional reach and threatens the health of the US digital asset market,” he wrote. bored perianne, founder and CEO of the Chamber of Digital Commerce. “This case represents a stealthy but dramatic and unprecedented effort to expand the SEC’s jurisdictional reach.”

The House emphasized that “the SEC’s encroachment on the digital asset market” was never authorized by Congress, noting that in other Supreme Court cases, it has ruled that regulators must first be given authority from Congress. The Chamber also highlighted the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that regulators must first receive authority from Congress.

On Twitter, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) stated: “By operating without the authorization of Congress, [the SEC] continues to contribute to a chaotic regulatory environment, thereby endangering the very investors it is tasked with defending.”

The Chamber also argued that the SEC was essentially asking the court to confirm that secondary market transactions in the nine digital assets named in an insider trading case against a former Coinbase employee constitute securities transactions, which the Chamber Chamber suggested it was “problematic.” The Chamber also argued that the SEC was essentially asking the court to confirm that secondary market transactions in the nine digital assets named in an insider trading case against a former Coinbase employee constitute securities transactions.

Perianne added: “We have serious concerns about the attempt to [the SEC] label these tokens as securities in the context of an enforcement action against third parties who had nothing to do with the creation, distribution or trade of those assets.” “We have serious concerns about the attempt to [the SEC] to label these tokens as securities”.

In its brief, the Chamber referred to the case LBRY v. SEC, in which the court decided that transactions using secondary markets would not be considered transactions involving securities.

The judge had been persuaded by an article written by commercial contracts lawyer Lewis Cohen, which noted that no court had recognized the underlying asset as a security at any time since the landmark ruling in SEC v. WJ Howey Co., a precedent-setting case to determine whether or not a securities transaction exists. The newspaper had persuaded the judge because it pointed out that no court had recognized the underlying asset as a security at any time since

The most recent amicus brief comes on the heels of a similar filing on February 13 by an advocacy group called the Blockchain Association. That filing similarly argued that the SEC had overstepped its authority in the case, stating that it was “the latest salvo in the SEC’s apparent ongoing strategy of regulation by enforcement in the digital asset space.”

An amicus curiae, sometimes known as a “friend of the court,” is a person or organization that is not directly involved in a lawsuit but can assist the court by providing relevant information or views. This person or organization may file an amicus brief.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit in July against Ishan Wahi, a former product manager at Coinbase Global; his brother, Nikhil Wahi; and an associate, Sameer Ramani, alleging that the three had used confidential information obtained by Ishan to make profits totaling $1.5 million while trading 25 different cryptocurrencies. The lawsuit also names Sameer Ramani as a defendant.