Bitcoin ($116,288.00)
Ethereum ($4,494.63)
XRP ($3.01)
Tether ($1.00)
BNB ($953.45)
Solana ($234.38)
USDC ($1.00)
Dogecoin ($0.27)
Lido Staked Ether ($4,488.64)
TRON ($0.34)
Rita Dfouni
- Unicoin seeks to dismiss the SEC’s $100M fraud case, claiming the agency misrepresented filings and overlooked disclosures.
- SEC charges Unicoin with exaggerating asset support and deceiving investors regarding rights certificates and token registration.
- Unicoin argues that the fraud standard is not satisfied, stating that risks were revealed and tokens have not been generated yet.
Crypto investment platform Unicoin has called on a federal judge in New York to reject the SEC’s $100 million fraud lawsuit, claiming the regulator has misrepresented filings and distorted disclosures. The company asserts that the SEC constructed its case by utilizing “fragments” of communications and remarks that are lacking context.
In its reply, Unicoin contended that the regulator viewed “standard financial forecasts and positivity as deceit” and overlooked multiple alerts regarding risks that were openly shared. It also claimed that the SEC was “misrepresenting Unicoin’s own documents and wrongfully reframing them as misleading.”
SEC vs unicoin: conflicting narratives
In May 2025, the SEC initiated its lawsuit against Unicoin, CEO Alex Konanykhin, board member Silvina Moschini, and former investment chief Alex Dominguez. The agency claims the firm obtained $100 million by deceiving investors regarding rights certificates associated with Unicoin tokens and shares.
Newsletter
Get weekly updates on the newest crypto stories, case studies and tips right in your mailbox.
The SEC stated that Unicoin exaggerated its support for tangible assets like real estate and pre-IPO shares, and incorrectly asserted that billions of dollars in certificates had been sold. The agency contended that Unicoin deceived investors by implying the products had SEC registration when they did not.
Unicoin dismissed these assertions, maintaining that although it referred to itself as “asset-backed,” it never claimed that its yet-to-be-minted tokens were fully collateralized. It stated that the SEC was trying to make it responsible for not producing tokens that had not been released.
Unicoin argues higher proof standard
Unicoin emphasized that securities fraud involves more than what the SEC has shown. Securities fraud requires a misleading statement, made with intent, that rational investors would have depended on. “Where, as in this case, the specific risks identified by the SEC were disclosed transparently and consistently, those criteria cannot be fulfilled,” the document asserted.
The company contended that the SEC mixed up the values of current real estate deals and was punishing it for “forward-looking optimism” instead of dishonesty.Unicoin has requested that the court dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, inhibiting the SEC from bringing the case again.
