Blockvest Founder Could Face Fraud Charges By the US SEC

Blockvest, The ICO caught in a scheme of fraud with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) for its fraudulent securities offering? The case of Reginald Buddy Ringgold III is back under the light as the SEC demands sanctions for the BlockVest founder as we are reading further in the cryptocurrency news below.

The ICO of Blockvest was first put under the purview of the SEC in October of 2018 when the Commission maintained that the firm was raising funds for financial products with the promise of double-digit returns. In November of 2018, a court ruled that not enough evidence was provided by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) that BLV the token of Blockvest was security. Whatsoever, that was not the end of the Blockvest drama. The Securities & Exchange Commission had not stopped the blockvest founder.

Besides the conviction of the Securities & Exchange Commission that Blockvest was guilty of holding fraudulent securities offering to the tune of $2.5 million, also it was found out that Blockvest was falsely claiming that the upcoming ICO of December 2018 was registered with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC).

Surely the website and marketing material of Blockvest, gave the impression of legitimacy. Like the imagined approval from the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), they also proudly marketed the logos of huge financial regulators. But the truth is that none of the companies nor regulators listed had been involved with Blockvest. By February of 2019, the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) had managed to convince the court that the BLV token was security after all and continued to violently pursue the case.

The Blockvest founder persuaded two pre-ICO investors to submit false statements. They were asked to negate the fact that they bought tokens with the promise of double-digit returns. There was another investor that was asked to lie for a payment of $147,000, pretending that was for the development costs of the company. The SEC argued:

 “Because this deception impacted the adjudication of a central legal issue in this matter and caused irreparable prejudice, the SEC requests that the court impose liability against defendants on the SEC’s claims prior to considering [an] upcoming [summary judgment motion. These false materials so tainted the credibility of any defense evidence, that there is no reason for the court to review this evidence for a triable issue of fact.”