Telegrams the popular messaging applications have won a court battle against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this week. The win was however was short lived. A federal judge denied the SEC’s request for Telegram to hand over all the financial details and bank details before January 8thregarding its TON project. Unfortunately the mounting ramification together along with the more aggressive stance taken by the Securities Exchange Commission following the start of the trail has made the management of the company to reconsider the TON strategy. Telegram has huge plans for the future as they have started to develop their own blockchain platform and also along with its own Cryptocurrency. The blockchain the company is developing is called the TON (Telegram Open Network) and the Cryptocurrency the company is making is known as the Grams. Telegram, has been in the legal battle over its blockchain and Cryptocurrency for months with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) exchange. The SEC sued the popular messaging app platform in October last year. According to the documentation that SEC made, the company had violated the many federal laws during its record breaking year. The year the company broke all the records are 2017. It was also the same year the company had its very first own ICO (Initial Coin Offering). The money launched in the ICO was a astounding amount of $1.7 billion.
Image Source: encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
The company defended its blockchain platform (TON) and also it’s token against the SEC. The company in a statement to the SEC expressed that it’s Cryptocurrency token Gram is a utility token which makes the tokens fall outside the jurisdiction of the SEC limits. The actions taken by the company offended the Security Exchange Commissions, which made the agency to investigate the matter. Now the SEC is against the sale of the Gram token and the group seeks to call into question the validity of 2017 initial company offering (ICO). The agency had pressed charges and has told the press that the company had engaged in illegal and fraudulent activity during its fund raising campaign. The charges the security agency have pressed came to a height when they made accusations against the company regarding that they had failed to deliver of investor information by landing excuses such as that of incompetence and stalling.
This information has put the company into bit of a quagmire and a sign of worry. The case is presided by Judge, Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York’s. He favored Telegram while overturning the SEC case and handed Telegram a small victory. The judge postponed the SEC request that ordered Telegram to furnish and give details about the investor’s information. The company told the court that it will be unable to provide the investor information to the company because it violated the European Union consumer protection laws. Basically, EU rules and regulation clearly states that, before any such exchange of information takes place, it should not contain any details of European Union citizen. So before handing over any such file to foreign government it should be devoid every EU citizen details.
Image Source: encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
The judge told the delay was only a matter of time and after sometime the company had to give into their request and provide the details to the SEC. The extra time the company is getting provides it with extra added cushion before the organization hands over the data or information to the foreign agency. Following the pressure from the agency, the Telegram executives decided that it would be best to abandon some of the most critical part of its TON blockchain.
Disclaimer: Darkweblink.com does not promote or endorse claims that have been made by any parties in this article. The information provided here is for the general purpose only and unintended to promote or support purchasing and/or selling of any products and services or serve as a recommendation in the involvement of doing so. Neither Darkweblink.com nor any member is responsible directly or indirectly for any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused by or in relation with the reliance on or usage of any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.