Facts
PlexCorp is a company that raised $15 million of fraudulent money by selling ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings). It sold 81 million coins out of the 400 million total that were available. The company got thousands of investors, and promised if all 400 million coins were sold, it would guarantee its investors "returns of 1,354 % in under 29 days." The company is charged with violating security laws and defrauding investors.
The SEC is in charge of "protecting investors, maintaining fair and orderly functioning securities markets, and functioning capital formation," and according to Securities Act of 1933 they " require that investors receive financial and other significant information concerning securities being offered for public sale; …show more content…
Lacroix is the CEO of PlexCorps and Paradis-Royer knew about Lacroix's actions. PlexCorps marketed and sold securities called PlexCoin Tokens on the internet to investors in the U.S. and elsewhere. PlexCorps claimed that investments in PlexCoin Tokens would return a 1,354 percent profit in less than 29 days (SEC vs PlexCorps 2). LaCroix spent $200,000 of revenue on excessive personal expenditures. PlexCorps is currently holding $810,000 in three accounts to which Lacroix and his associates will soon gain access (SEC vs. PlexCorps 5). The SEC, specifically the Cyber Unit, is a stakeholder. The SEC Cyber Unit attacks organizations that potentially sell fraudulent online securities. The SEC suit to freeze PlexCorps's assets stopped trading of PlexCorps's current cryptocurrency. Because PlexCoins are securities, the offer and sale of PlexCoin Tokens are subject to the federal securities laws. PlexCorps's ICO for the PlexCoin Tokens had neither a valid registration statement filed or in effect during its offer and sale nor an exemption from registration (SEC). Investors who buy PlexCorps's PlexCoins Tokens are stakeholders when determining whether PlexCorps's actions were principled according to Kantian Ethics. The SEC vs PlexCorps case states that "tens of thousands of investors, including over 1,500 transactions with investors in the United …show more content…
PlexCorps would have to tell investors how PlexCorps used investor money and communicate truthful feedback about the company and PlexCoin Tokens. In order to act morally according to the Kantian Rights Theory, PlexCorps should have followed all laws and acts cryptocurrencies are mandated to follow. In addition, PlexCorps actions must meet the three qualities of the categorical imperative.
If PlexCorps were to register with the SEC to legally raise funds, communicate growth to investors, and cease to advertise false information, PlexCorps could run a cryptocurrency and act ethically according to Kantian principles. This way, PlexCorps as a company would pass the universalization test because motives for selling PlexCoin Tokens would be to provide investors a currency that is reliable. If PlexCorps reversed the situation and PlexCorps was buying cryptocurrencies, they would be satisfied if the currencies were legitimate. Therefore, this alternative satisfies the reversibility test. If PlexCorps conducted business according to regulations and acted honestly, they would be acting ethically (means) in order to achieve an ethical goal (end). Behaving with honesty and creating a genuine cryptocurrency is an alternative that is ethical according to the Kantian Rights
PlexCorp is a company that raised $15 million of fraudulent money by selling ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings). It sold 81 million coins out of the 400 million total that were available. The company got thousands of investors, and promised if all 400 million coins were sold, it would guarantee its investors "returns of 1,354 % in under 29 days." The company is charged with violating security laws and defrauding investors.
The SEC is in charge of "protecting investors, maintaining fair and orderly functioning securities markets, and functioning capital formation," and according to Securities Act of 1933 they " require that investors receive financial and other significant information concerning securities being offered for public sale; …show more content…
Lacroix is the CEO of PlexCorps and Paradis-Royer knew about Lacroix's actions. PlexCorps marketed and sold securities called PlexCoin Tokens on the internet to investors in the U.S. and elsewhere. PlexCorps claimed that investments in PlexCoin Tokens would return a 1,354 percent profit in less than 29 days (SEC vs PlexCorps 2). LaCroix spent $200,000 of revenue on excessive personal expenditures. PlexCorps is currently holding $810,000 in three accounts to which Lacroix and his associates will soon gain access (SEC vs. PlexCorps 5). The SEC, specifically the Cyber Unit, is a stakeholder. The SEC Cyber Unit attacks organizations that potentially sell fraudulent online securities. The SEC suit to freeze PlexCorps's assets stopped trading of PlexCorps's current cryptocurrency. Because PlexCoins are securities, the offer and sale of PlexCoin Tokens are subject to the federal securities laws. PlexCorps's ICO for the PlexCoin Tokens had neither a valid registration statement filed or in effect during its offer and sale nor an exemption from registration (SEC). Investors who buy PlexCorps's PlexCoins Tokens are stakeholders when determining whether PlexCorps's actions were principled according to Kantian Ethics. The SEC vs PlexCorps case states that "tens of thousands of investors, including over 1,500 transactions with investors in the United …show more content…
PlexCorps would have to tell investors how PlexCorps used investor money and communicate truthful feedback about the company and PlexCoin Tokens. In order to act morally according to the Kantian Rights Theory, PlexCorps should have followed all laws and acts cryptocurrencies are mandated to follow. In addition, PlexCorps actions must meet the three qualities of the categorical imperative.
If PlexCorps were to register with the SEC to legally raise funds, communicate growth to investors, and cease to advertise false information, PlexCorps could run a cryptocurrency and act ethically according to Kantian principles. This way, PlexCorps as a company would pass the universalization test because motives for selling PlexCoin Tokens would be to provide investors a currency that is reliable. If PlexCorps reversed the situation and PlexCorps was buying cryptocurrencies, they would be satisfied if the currencies were legitimate. Therefore, this alternative satisfies the reversibility test. If PlexCorps conducted business according to regulations and acted honestly, they would be acting ethically (means) in order to achieve an ethical goal (end). Behaving with honesty and creating a genuine cryptocurrency is an alternative that is ethical according to the Kantian Rights