Crypto Prices

Empower Oversight Reveals SEC Report on Hinman: No Criminal Violations Found

2 weeks ago
1 min read
9 views

Acquisition of Key Report

Jason Foster, founder of the nonprofit organization Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research (EMPOWR), has announced that they have successfully acquired the report concerning cryptocurrency conflicts involving former SEC official William Hinman.

Investigation Findings

Following its investigation, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), an autonomous branch of the influential Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), concluded that there were no criminal violations associated with Hinman.

In its findings, the OIG evaluated Hinman’s controversial speech from 2018, during which he declared that Ethereum (ETH) did not qualify as a security. According to the OIG, this address did not breach the agency’s ethics regulations, as it was determined that Hinman’s comments did not have a “direct and predictable” impact on his financial stakes.

After spending 16 years at the prestigious law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, where he was involved with the [Ethereum Alliance], Hinman joined the SEC in May 2017.

Concerns and Testimony

Concerns were raised that Hinman had a vested interest in classifying Ether outside of securities regulations. However, the OIG reported no conflicting evidence that would dispute Hinman’s claims of recusal from any matters related to his former law firm. Additionally, during his testimony in 2021, Hinman stated that he did not possess any cryptocurrencies.

Collaborative Nature of the Speech

The speech in question was noted to be a “collaborative draft,” indicating that it did not solely reflect Hinman’s personal opinion. The OIG emphasized that numerous divisions within the SEC contributed to the drafting of the speech, noting that the choice to reference Ether was also made as part of this collaborative effort.

Calls for Broader Investigation

Despite these findings, Empower Oversight has expressed dissatisfaction with the report, arguing that it inadequately addresses the broader implications of potential conflicts of interest and focuses too narrowly on criminal evidence.

Popular