@decentralistdan @Esmussein @jchervinsky @bpforster24 @BlockFiZac @haydenzadams @delitzer @msantoriESQ 1/ Yep, for civil fraud consent may be a defense (Were risks truly disclosed? Was the consent informed? K of adhesion? etc), but it’s far from clear consent is a defense to crim fraud. Statutes focus on intent to derogate a lender’s security interest, not whether lender gave...
@decentralistdan @Esmussein @jchervinsky @bpforster24 @BlockFiZac @haydenzadams @delitzer @msantoriESQ 2/ ...consent. Process for lender granting a derogation of its security interest is v clear in state law—the lender affirmatively acts by releasing/amending the lien. If lender isn’t releasing & its security interest is diluted to 33% secured, for ex, could dist atty prosecute???
@decentralistdan @Esmussein @jchervinsky @bpforster24 @BlockFiZac @haydenzadams @delitzer @msantoriESQ 3/ A related & v interesting ? is why the securities industry can #rehypothecate w/o prosecution under these statutes. Perhaps an enterprising dist atty/AG hasn’t found the issue yet. More likely, it’s bc UCC Art 8 (enacted in 1994) allows securities intermediaries to sell/...
@decentralistdan @Esmussein @jchervinsky @bpforster24 @BlockFiZac @haydenzadams @delitzer @msantoriESQ 4/ ...pledge “security entitlements” it doesn’t own or own outright. So, state commercial & criminal laws appear to conflict re “security entitlements.” So, next interesting ? is whether #crypto industry would have the same protections as the securities industry. Far from clear!!
