The case involving the SEC against Telegram, for the issuance of the ICO Gram, was certainly one of the most significant events in the world of crypto in 2019 and seems destined to continue to be so also during this year; in fact, the SEC has just filed an injunction with the New York court to force Telegram to share data on how it spent the money raised from its ICO.
According to the lawyers of the Securities and Exchange Commission, knowing this is extremely relevant in the context of the current case.
The SEC, in fact, considers it necessary to know which part of the almost 2 billion dollars collected by telegram has already been spent and for what reason, however the company has proved to be reticent enough to meet the SEC's request and this leaves, sincerely, to reflect.
According to what can be read in the injunction, in fact, telegram would have refused to share this information, which makes very little sense; if Telegram has nothing to hide and has operated correctly, it is not clear why it should not satisfy such a request; on the other hand, the discussion is different if that money had been destined, even if only in part, to something that has nothing to do with TON.
In fact, it is difficult to hypothesize that investors can look favorably on the fact that this money may have been spent, just to give an example, giving rewards to company executives; Clearly, investors expect that the money raised will be spent on growing the project and not intended for things that have nothing to do with the project itself.
For its part, telegram said it was unable to produce any documentation, even partial, because, mind you, it would have recently changed banks.
As the saying goes, therefore, the patch is worse than the hole since it is not credible that a company of this size cannot attest to how it moved its funds simply because of having changed banks; such a company is expected to keep such documentation regardless of whether a lawsuit is pending or not.
Imagine, trivially, that any company receives a dispute and declares that it cannot rebuild the way it managed its funds because it changed banks; clearly he would not stand, clearly a company must keep accounting books and keep the relative supporting documents for every dollar spent.
No particular reactions are known from investors, who however in December had decided not to make use of the clause that would have allowed them to be reimbursed in the event of a postponement of the price of the tokens on the markets; a decision which, in any case, does not necessarily testify to the investor's trust in the project since, exercising the clause in question, the repayment would have been only partial.
Since the situation only complicates further, therefore, we just have to wait for Pavel Durov's hearing, scheduled for next Tuesday, in the hope that, at least then, more information will emerge on the evolution of this cause.
