US digital asset disputes updater: exploring the latest cases, regulatory developments, and legal trends

Key Takeaways:

• SEC formally ends Binance suit: is regulation by enforcement over?
• SEC charges Unicoin with $100 million fraud: a return to SEC fraud enforcement?
• Crypto.com Sues Nevada Gaming Control Board: are states the new battlegrounds for crypto issues?

Recent Legal Developments

Crypto conference season is in full swing—but we’re back with more crypto disputes developments from the past month. The SEC has ended its holdout suit against Binance, but has also pressed ahead with its industry roundtables on specific crypto issues. With market structure and stablecoin bills being considered in Congress as well, federal crypto policy appears to be a question of when rather than if at present. However, crypto litigation nevertheless continues with cases still seeing allegations of securities law violations. As we look at the second half of 2025, legislation will be a big push, but we’re also likely to see more private litigation arise in the absence of clear rules.

SEC Formally Ends Binance Suit

The SEC has voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Binance, ending the last exchange-based SEC crypto enforcement action. The case, originally filed in June 2023, accused the crypto giant of illegally serving U.S. users, inflating trading volumes, and misusing customer funds. The SEC dismissed this suit—which only ultimately made it to the motion to dismiss stage—with prejudice, completely closing the door to further suits in the future.

Insight: It appears that we can declare regulation by enforcement a dead letter now.

The Binance suit, the last holdout amongst the SEC’s major crypto enforcement actions, is now over. The relatively obvious implication of this move is that the “regulation by enforcement” era is officially over. Crypto companies are looking to IPO, pursuing acquisitions left and right, and otherwise expanding—these developments are almost certainly connected to the end of the SEC’s previous enforcement regime. With that said, this doesn’t mean that crypto companies can do as they please: there are still some rules to the road, and as noted below—and self-evident—fraud is never acceptable. But for now, the SEC, among other regulators, appears ready to allow crypto to experiment as it considers more clear rules.

SEC Charges Unicoin with $100 Million Fraud

However, in a recent enforcement action, the SEC has charged Unicoin, Inc. and three of its top executives—CEO Alex Konanykhin, former president Silvina Moschini, and former CIO Alex Dominguez—with orchestrating a fraudulent investment scheme that raised over $100 million. The company allegedly misled thousands of investors by promoting rights certificates tied to future crypto tokens, falsely claiming they were backed by billions in real estate and pre-IPO equity. Marketing efforts painted the offering as SEC-registered and low-risk, but the actual asset value was a fraction of what was promised. The SEC’s complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, accused the defendants of violating antifraud and registration provisions of federal securities laws.

Insight: The SEC, despite pulling back on crypto, is shifting enforcement focus toward fraud prevention—in line with the agency’s original purpose.

Although the SEC also initiated an action against Praetorian back in April, this recent action against Unicoin stands out as a crypto-forward antifraud action. Ultimately, these two actions—especially when juxtaposed against the agency’s pullback on exchange enforcement litigation—represent an ongoing effort to prevent crypto fraud. It’s positive to see new antifraud action from the SEC at a moment where it is attempting to discern the regulatory path forward for crypto. At minimum, the agency’s core purpose continues. 

Crypto.com Sues Nevada’s Gaming Control Board Over 

Crypto.com has filed a federal lawsuit against the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) and other state officials, challenging Nevada’s attempt to regulate or prohibit the trading of sports event derivatives on its exchange. Crypto.com’s “event contracts” were tied to outcomes of real-world events, such as sports, and argues that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over such markets, preempting any state regulation. The NGCB, however, sent Crypto.com a cease-and-desist letter, claiming these contracts constitute illegal, unlicensed sports wagering under Nevada law and threatened civil and criminal penalties. Crypto.com’s complaint, therefore, asserts that allowing states to regulate federally authorized derivatives would undermine the national market, create a patchwork of conflicting laws, and violate the CFTC’s impartial access requirements.

Insight: Nevada’s actions (and Crypto.com’s suit) suggest that states, rather than the federal level, are the new crypto law battleground(s).

We’ve seen a number of state-initiated suits against digital asset companies as the federal crypto enforcement and regulatory rollback continues. As such, states are becoming a bigger battlefield for crypto disputes and regulatory requirements. Although the question here is whether the NGCB is preempted by federal control over sports contracts, the subject matter here is something that could have widespread ramifications on crypto contract offerings and preemption issues in crypto moving forward.

The Mempool: Noteworthy Reads and Listens:

• “DeFining the American Spirit”: SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce’s speech at the Crypto Task Force’s recent DeFi roundtable demonstrates the agency’s commitment to a reasonable approach to DeFi regulation. Notably, she also calls out the notion that “centralized entities [cannot] avoid regulation by hiding behind a ‘DeFi’ label.”
• Robert Schwinger’s No Virtual Causation for Virtual Assets?: NRF’s Robert Schwinger has just released an article examining how courts are applying traditional legal causation principles—specifically actual and proximate cause—to blockchain-based transactions and virtual assets, despite the decentralized and complex nature of these systems. It’s worth a read—very interesting material that even touches on Section 12(a) Securities Act cases!

If you have any questions about these developments or your own digital asset-related litigation matters, please contact NRF Digital Asset Disputes Partner Eric Martin or Associate Gage Raju-Salicki to set up some time to discuss your questions.