Summary of Amicus Curiae – In Re SEC v. Unicoin et al.
This document is an amicus curiae brief prepared for the Government Blockchain Association, arguing that the SEC’s enforcement action against Unicoin represents unconstitutional regulatory overreach and poses broader risks to the U.S. digital asset industry.
Core Arguments
- Civil Enforcement Used as De Facto Criminal Punishment – The brief argues the SEC is using civil courts to impose punitive, quasi-criminal penalties (e.g., bans, disgorgement) without meeting the higher “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, undermining constitutional protections.
- Violation of the Major Questions Doctrine – It claims the SEC lacks authority to regulate digital assets at this scale, asserting that:
- Congress—not the SEC—should decide crypto regulation.
- Oversight of payment-related digital assets more appropriately belongs to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), especially under the GENIUS Act.
- “Regulation by Enforcement” Violates Due Process – The SEC is accused of:
-
- Failing to provide clear rules or guidance
- Applying outdated laws inconsistently (e.g., Howey test)
- Creating a “compliance vacuum”, then penalizing firms for noncompliance
This is framed as a violation of Fifth Amendment due process and civil rights.
Conclusion
The brief urges the court to:
- Dismiss the case or pause it until Congress clarifies regulatory authority
- Recognize SEC overreach as unconstitutional
- Award legal costs to defendants
- Affirm that digital asset oversight should fall under banking regulators (OCC) rather than securities enforcement