As far as these two cases, it appears the SEC has a
defensible legal argument:
The court applied the three-part test articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co.[12], to determine whether an offering, contract, transaction, or scheme constitutes an investment contract.[13] Under the Howey test, a contract, transaction, or scheme is an “investment contract” if it involves: (i) the investment of money; (ii) in a common enterprise; and (iii) with the expectation of profits to come solely from the efforts of others.
The court in Shavers held that all three prongs of the Howey test were satisfied and, thereby, the sale of interests in the trust constituted the sale of securities.[14] In its analysis, the court found:
That because Bitcoin can be used as money to purchase goods or services and also can be exchanged for conventional currencies, that Bitcoin was in fact a currency or form of money;
That the investors and the promoter were interdependent because the investors were dependent on Shavers’s expertise in Bitcoin markets and his local connections; in addition, Shavers allegedly promised a substantial return on their investments as a result of his trading and exchanging Bitcoin; and
Investors participating in the BST investments were expecting profits from the efforts of Shavers.
Based on these findings, the court concluded that the BST investments met the definition of “investment contract,” and as such, were securities.
Having said that, in my mind 'defensible' does not equate to 'legitimate'. But there are many things ensconced in the legal structure that are illegitimate.
It appears that applying the Howey test to these matters hinges upon whether or not Bitcoin is 'money'. This may not be settled until the Supremes weigh in - presumable not any time soon. In the meantime, it would not be astonishing to see the SEC continue to assert that 'things' don't stop being statutory securities just because they are denominated in Bitcoin rather than USD.
(Frankly, I don't agree with the doctrine that allows for the SEC to have any authority whatsoever, but that is another topic altogether)
I assume Shavers will be charged with more criminal theft or fraud statutes after this silly 'offering unregistered securities' charge concludes trial. At least I hope so.
While I know little about Voorhees' overall biz dealings*, I assume that in regards to SatoshiDice, this action will probably be the end of it.
*I have had sidebar discussions with others that suggest there may have been an element of malfeasance to Erik's other dealings. To this assertion, I have no comment.