In Re Erik T. Voorhees (settlement): Not Really a Bitcoin Case

The hot bitcoin-related story involves the settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and bitcoin-advocate, Erik T. Voorhees.

This case involves bitcoin but is not about bitcoin.  Stated differently, this case is not an attack on bitcoin.  It simply involves charges of a crime unrelated to the virtual currency itself.

Specifically, Voorhees was charged with offering securities (stock) in two different companies which were not registered with the SEC.  There were other associated alleged violations (e.g., not filing a prospectus).

Bitcoin is involved, but is not the focus of this case, only because Voorhees is a bitcoin-advocate, the stocks were sold in bitcoin, and the two businesses used bitcoin.

There is nothing in the order/settlement which criticizes or criminalizes bitcoin.

The settlement means that Voorhees disgorges $15,000 (plus interest) and pays a $35,000 civil penalty.  Stories (such as this one) that he is paying a $50,000 “fine” are not defining the terms correctly.

The settlement / order instituting cease and desist proceedings is here.

The SEC’s press release is here.  Their prior May 7, 2014 “Investor Alert: Bitcoin and other Virtual Currency-Related Investments” is here.

Voorhees’ post on Reddit about the settlement is here.

law & order
Trump v. Vance: Initial Breakdown of the November 2, 2019 Second Circuit Opinion re: Production of Tax Returns

The Second Circuit issued its opinion this morning in Donald J. Trump v. Cyrus Vance, Jr. in his capacity as District Attorney of the County of New York and Mazars USA, LLP. You can find the 34-page opinion here. The following is an initial, rough outline of the court’s opinion. …

4th Amendment
When Can You Withdraw Consent for a DUI Blood Draw in Florida? (Florida v. Jennifer Ivie)

A Florida driver was involved in an accident, taken to the hospital, and interviewed by police who were conducting a DUI investigation. The officer spoke with the driver, advised her of her Miranda rights, conducted at least one visual test, and otherwise detected signs of intoxication. The officer asked the …

1st Amendment
“Valid Grounds for Employment Action” Deemed Not Enough for Stalking Injunction under F.S. 784.048 (Klenk v. Ransom)

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal held today that a respondent’s behavior may be enough for an “employment action” (presumably, for termination due to sexual harassment) but, in this case, was not enough for the “exacting standard” for an injunction against stalking under Florida Statute 748.048. The case is Joseph …