US SEC Charges Dropil and team for Fraudulent and Unregistered ICO
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charges founders and issuer of Dropil, Inc. with securities fraud
What Happened?
April 24, 2020: Between January and March 2018, Jeremy McAlpine, Zachary Matar, and Patrick O’Hara of Dropil, Inc. marketed the DROP token offering online to investors around the world.
In promoting the offering, Dropil promised to pool the capital raised for building and investing with their algorithm-based “Dex Bot”. Dropil promised investors the “Dex Bot” would provide returns from this activity in the form of DROP Tokens deposited into their wallets every 15 days. However, Dropil never made any deposits to investors’ wallets, nor performed any development of the aforementioned “Dex Bot”.
The U.S. SEC (United States Securities and Exchange Commission) also found that Dropil claimed to have raised a total of USD $54 million from 34,000 investors–despite only raising $1.8 million from no more than 2,500 investors. In addition to this falsified evidence and testimony, the founders of Dropil were found to have used the money raised to fund other projects, as well as their own personal bank accounts.
Source: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2020/lr24804.htm
Who Is Impacted?
Any issuer of a virtual asset who has failed to properly register their offering as a security, or has chosen to market it with false and misleading statements, or promises of potential returns.
Why This Matters?
2,500 investors lost $1.8 million in this scheme. The action taken by the SEC is evidence that they have both the authority and technical ability to monitor, investigate, and take action against the bad actors operating illegally in the digital capital markets, without prejudice.
What’s Next?
Issuers of “utility tokens”, security tokens, cryptocurrencies, etc., who used their virtual asset to either raise capital, secure investment, or generate pre-sales will continue to fall under scrutiny.
- Was the offering registered with the proper authority?
- Was the opportunity marketed in a lawful manner and with integrity?
- Are the funds that were raised being used in the manner that they were presented to potential purchasers?
Such firms should seek independent legal advice to consider whether they may be exposed to this type of risk.
The SEC action against the Dropil ICO is yet another case study in what can put an issuer offside–and land them in court–in the U.S. market.
learn more
Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?
iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.
Request a demo today.
Spotlight On: The Role of AML in Ending Human Trafficking
Human trafficking and modern slavery remain two of the most challenging humanitarian issues for international legislators and law enforcement agencies to resolve—due in large part to the the level of difficulty to uncover hidden channels and illegal measures that...
Regtech Terms 101: Definitions Made Simple
If you're in the process of implementing or revising your money laundering and financial crime protocols, you’ve no doubt come across the many terms and acronyms associated with financial regulations. As fintech and related financial crime mandates continue to evolve,...
What Triggers an AML Investigation?
Money laundering and financial fraud are two of the biggest risks facing businesses and institutions worldwide, with an estimated USD $800 million to $2 billion laundered annually. To combat this, global legislators such as FinCEN, FINTRAC, and various European...