Congressional Memo Challenges SEC's SAB 121

A memorandum submitted by several U.S. Congress members, including chairs from key financial committees, has called into question the enforceability of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (SAB 121). This development follows a decision by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) characterizing SAB 121 as a rule under the Congressional Review Act.

Introduced on April 11, 2022, without consultation with major financial regulatory bodies, SAB 121 requires custodians to report customer custodial digital assets on their balance sheets, evaluated at fair value. This directive deviates from standard accounting practices, potentially misrepresenting custodians’ legal and economic responsibilities and escalating consumer risk.

The GAO, in October 2023, asserted that companies might alter their behaviors to align with the SEC’s interpretations in the Bulletin, due to the SEC’s role in monitoring public disclosures and enforcing compliance. Notably, the SEC did not submit SAB 121 to Congress or the GAO, nor did it publish it in the Congressional Record, as mandated by the Congressional Review Act.

The Congressional memo highlights concerns that enforcing this noncompliant rule would create a precedent for regulatory evasion of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), effectively granting the SEC undue regulatory control over unauthorised entities. The Congress members have requested financial authorities to clarify, through guidance or action, that SAB 121 is not enforceable following the GAO’s determination.

SAB 121’s mandate for banks to record client cryptocurrency holdings on their balance sheets, with appropriate valuation and capitalization, has drawn criticism from industry representatives and U.S. politicians. They argue that it could deter regulated banks from acting as crypto custodians and treat crypto holdings differently from traditional assets.

The inquiry into SAB 121’s status as a rule stemmed from Senator Cynthia Lummis’s letter to the U.S. Comptroller General in August 2022. The Congressional Review Act necessitates that an agency rule be reported to both Congress and the comptroller general, with a provision for Congressional disapproval. In June 2022, five senators had already expressed opposition to what they termed “backdoor regulation” in a letter to SEC Chair Gary Gensler.

The memorandum signifies a significant moment in the oversight of digital asset regulation, emphasizing the need for clarity and adherence to established legislative procedures.

Coinbase's Legal Challenge Against SEC's Decision

Coinbase, the United States’ largest cryptocurrency exchange, has escalated its legal confrontation with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This significant legal battle, unfolding in the Third Circuit court, is not just a corporate skirmish but a defining moment in the broader dialogue about cryptocurrency regulation in America.

Coinbase’s Assertive Appeal

Coinbase’s legal challenge stems from the SEC’s refusal to respond to its petition for rulemaking on cryptocurrency. After a prolonged 18-month silence from the SEC, Coinbase turned to the courts to compel a response, a move that aligns with the industry’s call for clearer regulatory guidelines. Coinbase’s Chief Legal Officer, Paul Grewal, in a bold public statement, underscored the company’s determination to seek judicial intervention against what they perceive as the SEC’s failure to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.

SEC’s Firm Stance

Under the leadership of Chair Gary Gensler, the SEC has maintained a rigid stance, emphasizing its discretion in setting regulatory priorities and asserting the applicability of existing laws to the crypto securities market. Gensler’s defense of the Commission’s decision highlights a fundamental conflict: the balancing act between adhering to established rules and adapting to the evolving landscape of digital currencies.

The conflict between Coinbase and the SEC goes beyond these two entities, reflecting a larger debate over the regulatory jurisdiction in the cryptocurrency sector. This dispute underlines the urgency for clear and workable regulatory frameworks that can foster industry growth while ensuring investor protection. The outcome of this legal confrontation could have significant implications for the future of cryptocurrency regulation in the United States, potentially setting precedents for how digital currencies are governed.

Exit mobile version