Unicoin asked a New York federal judge to dismiss the SEC’s $100 million fraud case, saying the regulator distorted its filings. The company said the SEC misquoted documents, took “snippets” out of context, and ignored repeated risk disclosures.
Unicoin’s filing stated,
“Most bizarrely, the SEC twists Unicoin’s disclosures in the company’s own SEC filings and improperly recasts these disclosures as proof of deception.”
In May 2024, the SEC sued Unicoin, its CEO Alex Konanykhin, board member Silvina Moschini, and former investment chief Alex Dominguez. The lawsuit alleged they raised $100 million through misleading statements about certificates tied to Unicoin tokens and stock rights.
SEC Fraud Allegations and Unicoin’s Response
The SEC fraud allegations said Unicoin misled investors by claiming billions in real estate and pre-IPO equity backed its forthcoming Unicoin token. The regulator said the assets were worth far less than claimed.
The SEC also alleged that Unicoin exaggerated sales figures. According to the complaint, Unicoin claimed over $3 billion in certificate sales, but records showed only $110 million. The agency further said Unicoin advertised its certificates and tokens as SEC-registered, though they were not.
Unicoin rejected these allegations, saying the SEC relied on mischaracterizations. The company said references to being “asset-backed” described the firm itself, not its future tokens. Unicoin’s filing added,
“At no point did any Defendant claim that unicoins would function as a fully collateralized investment.”
Unicoin Argues SEC Case Lacks Proof
Unicoin told the court the SEC fraud case lacked the required elements of securities fraud. The company argued that the regulator did not prove false statements made with intent to deceive investors.
“Securities fraud demands more. It requires a false statement, made with scienter, that reasonable investors would have relied on,”
Unicoin wrote.
“Where, as here, the very risks the SEC identifies were disclosed openly and repeatedly, those elements cannot be met.”
The filing described the lawsuit as a “shotgun pleading,” built on circumstantial evidence and semantics. Unicoin said the SEC failed to show motive and instead relied on context taken out of place.
SEC vs. Unicoin on Token Backing and Real Estate
The SEC vs. Unicoin case also centered on real estate transactions. Regulators said the company overstated values by presenting incomplete property deals as finalized. Unicoin countered that some deals were still closing, and the SEC misrepresented their status.
The company also argued that the Unicoin token had not yet been created. It said the SEC was attempting to hold it liable for failing to mint tokens that did not yet exist. According to Unicoin, the lawsuit itself stopped the company from launching tokens backed by assets.
Unicoin added that its statements about token plans were forward-looking, not guarantees. It said the SEC misused these plans as evidence of fraud.
Unicoin Requests Dismissal With Prejudice
Unicoin asked the court to dismiss the SEC’s $100 million fraud case with prejudice. That would prevent the regulator from refiling the complaint.
The company argued that the SEC relied on distorted excerpts from filings, unproven asset values, and unfinished transactions. It said the lawsuit should not move forward because the allegations lacked direct proof.
An excerpt from Unicoin’s filing, published on PACER, reinforced its stance:
“Securities fraud demands more…those elements cannot be met.”
