Former Coinbase Product Manager Seeks to Dismiss SEC Charges of Insider Trading
Rebeca Moen Feb 09, 2023 09:12
Ten lawyers from five law firms filed a move to dismiss an SEC insider trading lawsuit against two brothers, calling the regulator "wrong" and lacking government authorisation.
A former product manager at the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase has made a formal request to have the allegations of suspected illegal insider trading dropped against them. Since the tokens that are being alleged to have been traded by him are not securities, his legal team believes that the charges should be dismissed as groundless. The fact that this is the case is the primary justification for dismissing the charges.
Ishan Wahi, a former employee of Coinbase, and Nikhil Wahi, his brother, are both being represented by attorneys who, on February 6, filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington requesting that the charges brought against them by the Securities and Exchange Commission be dropped. Ishan Wahi is also being represented by his brother, Nikhil Wahi. Nikhil Wahi is also being represented by attorneys. Attorneys are also defending Nikhil Wahi's interests in this case. Ishan Wahi was a member of the Coinbase team in the past.
The SEC filed charges of insider trading against the brothers and their associate Sameer Ramani in July of last year, alleging that the three of them made $1.1 million using Ishan's tips on the timing and names of tokens in upcoming Coinbase listings. The SEC filed these charges against the brothers and their associate Sameer Ramani. These allegations were brought against both of the brothers as well as their colleague Sameer Ramani by the SEC. Additionally, allegations were made against Sameer Ramani that he engaged in insider trading.
The attorneys prepared a report that was more than 80 pages long and in it they described the many ways in which the SEC's statements were "incorrect."
They stated that the bitcoins that were supposedly sold by the Wahi family did not satisfy the legal definition of a security since they did not have a "investment contract written or inferred." This was the basis for their argument. To put it another way, there was neither a written nor an inferred agreement between the parties to invest in the bitcoins. Instead, they compared bitcoins to collectibles like baseball cards and stuffed animals, like stuffed animals and stuffed animals.
Image source: Shutterstock