Join the hunt for $12,000,000+ in NEXO Tokens!

Learn More

Ripple proposes $10M settlement to SEC's $2B fine

Ripple pushes back against SEC's $2 billion fine demand.

An illustration depicts a handshake representing a settlement agreement between Ripple and the SEC, with money bags in the background symbolizing the disputed fines over XRP sales

Share this article

Ripple has filed a court response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) pursuit of nearly $2 billion in fines, advocating for a different approach. In the filing dated April 22, Ripple proposed that the Court reject the SEC’s demands and instead impose a civil penalty not exceeding $10 million.

Stuart Alderoty, Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, conveyed the company’s stance in a statement on the X platform, stating that the case “had no allegations (or findings) of recklessness or fraud.” Alderoty claims that the SEC’s demand can be characterized as part of a broader pattern of intimidating actions leveled against the crypto industry within the US, noting that Ripple scored significant legal victories on matters in the case.

“The US will be picking up the pieces of the agency’s disastrous policies long after Gensler is gone,” Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse added.

Ripple maintains that the SEC’s $2 billion fine request was further evidence of the regulator’s overreach and was ungrounded in law or principle. The firm contended that the Gary Gensler-led agency’s demands hinged on speculative future violations. However, Ripple asserts it has adapted its XRP token sales method to align with court mandates.

In its court filing, Ripple stated:

“[Ripple] has changed the way itsells XRP and changed its contracts to avoid the problems identified by this Court. It has ensured that its counter-parties qualify as accredited investors.”

The crypto company also noted that the regulator’s demand “exceeds by more than 20 times what it has obtained from any other defendant or respondent in a digital-asset case.” Consequently, Ripple argued that the SEC failed to show that disgorgement was warranted and that prejudgment interest requests should also be rejected.

Share this article