Ripple and the SEC’s joint efforts failed when a U.S. judge refused to reduce the $125 million penalty and lift an injunction in the XRP case, keeping key restrictions on Ripple’s institutional token sales intact.

Ripple’s Attempt to Reduce Penalty Blocked by Court

The long-running legal battle between Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) saw a fresh development this week, as U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres denied a joint request to amend the court’s earlier ruling. The decision leaves Ripple responsible for a $125 million civil penalty and maintains an injunction imposed over certain XRP sales.

Less than two weeks ago, both parties approached the court seeking to reduce Ripple’s penalty for unregistered institutional XRP sales to $50 million, a significant cut from the $2 billion originally pursued by the SEC under former Chair Gary Gensler. The proposal also requested the removal of restrictions on Ripple’s future XRP transactions. 

However, Judge Torres dismissed these requests, citing the SEC’s extensive casework and the integrity of the court’s prior findings.

Court Upholds Previous Findings on Institutional Sales

In her ruling, Torres reaffirmed the distinction made in her 2023 judgment: while Ripple’s programmatic XRP sales through exchanges did not violate securities law, its direct institutional sales did. The judge noted that the SEC had built a strong case over four years to establish those violations, which warranted both financial penalties and operational restrictions on Ripple.

The court made it clear that neither the SEC nor Ripple could retroactively nullify a court’s final judgment through mutual agreement. Judge Torres emphasized that an enforcement agency may alter its approach after initiating legal action, but both parties remain bound by the legal consequences already established.

Legal Experts Speculate on the Court’s Motives

The ruling has triggered speculation within the crypto legal community. Attorney Fred Rispoli took to social media to suggest possible reasons behind the court’s firm stance. According to Rispoli, frustration over the protracted litigation or underlying political biases might have played a role in the rejection. He noted the possibility of the court being discontent with

Go to Source to See Full Article
Author: Amara Khatri