Unicoin fights back: crypto firm challenges SEC fraud case in New York court

Crypto investment platform Unicoin has mounted a strong defense against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the ongoing unicoin sec fraud case, urging a federal judge in New York to dismiss the lawsuit.

In a filing submitted on Wednesday, the company argued that the SEC had distorted routine financial statements and risk disclosures in order to frame its allegations.

“The SEC plucks snippets of communications and distorts their meaning and context; treats routine financial projection and optimism as fraud; and ignores Unicoin’s sober warnings about risk,” — Unicoin’s legal team wrote in its motion to dismiss.

The SEC first sued Unicoin, its CEO Alex Konanykhin, board member Silvina Moschini, and former investment chief Alex Dominguez in May, alleging the firm misled investors and raised more than $100 million through certificates tied to future Unicoin tokens and company stock.

SEC’s core allegations against Unicoin

At the center of the unicoin sec fraud case are claims that Unicoin misrepresented the value of assets backing its forthcoming tokens. The SEC alleged that the company promoted its project as being supported by billions of dollars in real estate and pre-IPO equity, when the true value was significantly lower.

The regulator also claimed that Unicoin exaggerated its fundraising, telling investors it had sold more than $3 billion in rights certificates when the actual figure was closer to $110 million. Further, the SEC accused the company of marketing the certificates and future tokens as SEC-registered, which it says was false.

“These kinds of misrepresentations strike at the heart of investor protection,” — SEC spokesperson said in a statement at the time of the filing.

Unicoin calls case “mischaracterization”

Unicoin’s latest filing argues that the SEC has built its complaint on semantics rather than substance. The company said its executives never claimed that unicoins which have yet to be minted would be fully collateralized by real-world assets. Instead, it maintains that references to being “asset-backed” related to Unicoin’s broader corporate strategy, not the tokens themselves.

“At no point did any Defendant claim that unicoins would function as a fully collateralized investment,” the filing stated.

The company added that the SEC was attempting to punish it for not delivering tokens that had not yet been created, calling the case a premature and unfair interpretation of forward-looking business plans.

“Where, as here, the very risks the SEC identifies were disclosed openly and repeatedly, those elements cannot be met,” — Unicoin filing.

Industry implications of the unicoin sec fraud case

The unicoin sec fraud case comes amid heightened regulatory scrutiny of digital assets in the United States. Analysts say the outcome could shape how token pre-sales and corporate treasury disclosures are treated by the SEC in future cases.

“The SEC has taken an increasingly aggressive stance on crypto fundraising mechanisms, and this case highlights how even nuanced language around asset backing can become a liability,” — Angela Walch, Professor of Law at St. Mary’s University, told CoinDesk.

For Unicoin, the case has effectively stalled its plans to issue tokens and back them with assets, a move the company insists it was preparing to execute before the SEC intervened. Executives argue the regulator is holding it liable for future actions that remain incomplete, creating what they describe as an impossible legal standard.

Unicoin has asked the court to dismiss the SEC’s complaint with prejudice, which would prevent the regulator from re-filing. A ruling on the motion is expected later this year.

What comes next

For crypto investors, the unicoin sec fraud case underscores the risks of early-stage projects navigating uncertain regulatory frameworks. While Unicoin has positioned itself as a pioneer in asset-backed crypto products, the SEC’s claims raise questions about transparency, disclosure, and investor protection.

Whether the court sides with Unicoin or the SEC, the case will likely set an important precedent for how token-based fundraising and asset-backing claims are judged in U.S. courts.

As one industry observer noted: “This is less about Unicoin itself and more about the rules of the game for everyone raising capital in crypto.”