U.S. Markets closed
  • S&P 500

    3,298.46
    +51.87 (+1.60%)
     
  • Nasdaq

    10,913.56
    +241.26 (+2.26%)
     
  • Russell 2000

    1,474.91
    +23.09 (+1.59%)
     
  • Crude Oil

    40.04
    -0.27 (-0.67%)
     
  • Gold

    1,864.30
    -12.60 (-0.67%)
     
  • Silver

    22.99
    -0.21 (-0.91%)
     
  • EUR/USD

    1.1639
    -0.0037 (-0.3142%)
     
  • 10-Yr Bond

    0.6590
    -0.0070 (-1.05%)
     
  • Vix

    26.38
    -2.13 (-7.47%)
     
  • GBP/USD

    1.2744
    -0.0007 (-0.0586%)
     
  • BTC-USD

    10,716.28
    +19.29 (+0.18%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    230.19
    +12.36 (+5.67%)
     
  • FTSE 100

    5,842.67
    +19.89 (+0.34%)
     
  • Nikkei 225

    23,204.62
    +116.82 (+0.51%)
     

E-Gold Claims US Officials Buried Key Report in 2008 Landmark Crypto Ruling

Paddy Baker

A defunct  digital currency project that was a precursor to bitcoin has claimed the U.S. government suppressed crucial evidence in a 2008 landmark case that has since shaped the cryptocurrency industry.

  • E-Gold’s former directors filed a petition Tuesday for a writ of coram nobis – in which the court changes the original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error – at the District of Columbia court.

  • Founded in 1996, E-Gold allowed users to trade digital units backed by precious metals – at its peak, the company held around $85 million in gold.

  • The U.S. government charged E-Gold with being an unlicensed money transmitter in 2007; the project’s directors pleaded guilty in 2008.

  • The ex-directors now claim in court that the federal government unlawfully concealed a 2006 review from Florida’s Office for Financial Regulation (OFR) so they “could make an example” out of E-Gold.

  • Per the filing, the OFR review said E-Gold did not count as a money transmitter, as the gold-based asset was closer to a commodity than a fiat currency under state law.

  • E-Gold’s former directors claim the court’s judgment would have been substantially different had they been allowed access to the OFR review

  • The E-Gold case effectively extended the definition of “money transmitter” in the U.S. to include any system that stored and transferred value.

  • Many crypto businesses subsequently have had to be regulated as money transmitters in individual states if they want to operate legally in the U.S.

See the full filing below:

See also: Lessons From the First Digital Gold Boom

Related Stories