The monumental hearing between Bitfinex (iFinex) and New York Attorney General proceeded with a tough fight. iFinex lawyers attempted to dismiss the case and removal of the order 354 imposed by the AG. While the NYAG, Letitia James, tried to establish the relation between Tether execs and their work in NY.
Zack Voell, an analyst for Messari who was present at the hearing noted,
The “hundreds of thousands of unverified customers” and on-going business relationships in New York are favorite talking points of the AG.
However, the NYAG does not seem to have a definite proof to establish the transaction between NY users and the Exchange involving in any collusion.
The defendant’s attorneys pressed for the dismissal of Martin’s law (order 354). However, Judge Cohen noted,
the 354 order is the AG’a main tool to investigate, which defense doesn’t like, so he’s confused.
Martin Law a.k.a “blue sky” law gives the New York Attorney General expansive law enforcement powers to conduct investigations of securities fraud and bring civil or criminal actions against alleged violators of the Act.
Nevertheless, the judge also seemed to restrict the reach on Tether. Since Martin’s laws apply to securities or commodity only, NYAG is trying to characterize Tether as one. However, the defense objected to it. In the end, Voell quoted the judge saying,
I don’t think you can go long on Tether though…
iFinex lawyers noted that the NYAG is presenting a mixed bag of accusations while they have no part in it. Bitfinex stopped serving the US clients long back and has been trying to block the infiltrators who somehow manage to jump the security walls.
Moreover, both Tether and iFinex are independent companies with different business models. The defendant argued that order 354 should not be imposed because it has no relevance to the case hearing.
The case hearing apparently neither explored the claims of the $700 million embezzlements nor did they talk about the truth and explanation behind the 1:1 backing of USDT. The case that NYAG presented today was not substantial enough for the judges.
The judges have served a 90-day extension for careful consideration more deliberation from both the plaintiff and defendant. Hence, the fears that the market was building around the case has been avoided with a strong note.
Do you think lack of laws enacted on cryptocurrencies has affected NYAG’s case adversely? Please share your views with us.