Unicoin Challenges SEC's "Scienter" in High-Stakes Crypto Legal Battle

Unicoin, a cryptocurrency investment platform, has filed a motion to dismiss a $100 million fraud lawsuit brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The company argues that the SEC has selectively quoted from its public filings, misrepresented forward-looking statements as fraudulent, and failed to establish the necessary intent—known in legal terms as "scienter"—required to prove securities fraud. Unicoin claims the lawsuit relies on "shotgun pleading" and circumstantial evidence rather than specific allegations of misrepresentation. In its filing, the company asserts that it consistently disclosed risks and uncertainties related to its real estate investments and token offerings, and that the SEC's complaint mischaracterizes routine financial projections as deceptive.

The SEC filed its lawsuit in May 2025, naming Unicoin’s CEO Alex Konanykhin, board member Silvina Moschini, and former investment chief Alex Dominguez as defendants. The regulator alleges that the company misrepresented the value of its token-backed assets and overstated sales figures. Specifically, the SEC claims that Unicoin exaggerated the value of real estate assets in Argentina, Antigua, Thailand, and the Bahamas, and in some cases promoted deals that had not yet closed. The agency further asserts that the company’s financial statements contained false claims about its funding runway and liquidity position. Unicoin, however, denies these allegations, stating that all asset values and sales figures were accurately disclosed in its filings, and that some transactions were still in the process of finalizing.

In response, Unicoin highlights its commitment to transparency and compliance, stating that it voluntarily registered its securities, published audited financial statements, and limited its offerings to accredited investors. The company also notes that it had engaged top-tier legal and compliance experts and that its filings were subject to independent audit. Unicoin’s CEO, Alex Konanykhin, has criticized the SEC’s enforcement action as politically motivated, claiming that former SEC Chair Gary Gensler sought to prevent Unicoin from listing on the New York Stock Exchange as part of a broader "anti-crypto crusade." Konanykhin also pointed to a series of subpoenas issued to the company’s partners and vendors in 2024, which he argues were designed to disrupt critical business relationships.

A key point of contention in the case is whether the SEC’s allegations rely on concrete misstatements or merely interpretive disagreements about forward-looking disclosures. Legal experts suggest that the SEC’s case reflects a traditional securities fraud framework, unlike some recent crypto enforcement actions that have faced increased scrutiny. Katherine Reilly, a former federal prosecutor, noted that the SEC has clearly outlined allegations of misrepresentation, particularly regarding asset valuations and unfulfilled real estate acquisitions. However, she also acknowledged that Unicoin’s defense may gain traction if the court determines that the complaint lacks specific allegations of fraudulent intent. The outcome of the motion to dismiss could determine whether the case proceeds to discovery, where the SEC would be required to provide additional evidence to support its claims.

Unicoin’s motion to dismiss further challenges the SEC’s interpretation of its financial projections, particularly those related to Unicoin Rights Certificates. The company argues that its marketing materials always included explicit risk warnings alongside optimistic projections, and that the SEC’s complaint cherry-picks quotes to create a misleading narrative. For example, Unicoin points to a 2023 press release in which it announced a $335 million agreement to purchase a luxury resort in Thailand, stating that it would pay 140% of the property’s appraised value in Unicoin tokens. The company insists that the agreement was binding and transparent, and that the SEC has conflated the value of the token-based transaction with the actual property value.

The legal battle between Unicoin and the SEC is being closely watched as a potential precedent for future cryptocurrency-related enforcement actions. If the court grants the motion to dismiss, it could signal a shift in judicial scrutiny over the SEC’s ability to prove intent in cases involving digital assets. Conversely, if the SEC is allowed to proceed, it may reinforce its authority to regulate crypto platforms under traditional securities laws. Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores the ongoing tension between innovation in the cryptocurrency sector and the regulatory frameworks designed to protect investors and ensure market integrity.

Source: