Hm...I may be mish mashing Canadian and American rules together. Seems you yanks don't have it as tough down there although recent changes to rules on general solicitation may be making it tougher. It would seem that as of now, accredited investors could slip by despite not actually being accredited but that if this happens, securities issuers could run afoul of SEC rule 506(c).
I'll have to do some more reading. I was firmly under the impression that claiming status as an accredited investor when you are not such a thing was fraudulent.
It is fraudulent to claim you are an accredited investor when you aren't, but companies don't have incentive to actively breech users' privacy to attempt denying service, and government doesn't have much incentive to try enforcing these rules on an individual level when there's no indication of illegal activity. The only exception is when there's potential for "terrorism," which is probably the reason for SM's background check. (it's probably not a full financial audit determining whether or not the potential member is an accredited investor - but since they don't say exactly what the check is or what it's for, it's hard to say for sure)
A bigger, similar-in-principle loophole example in these kinds of rules would be the FEC's political contribution rules. You can donate up to $50 anonymously. So long as it isn't a bunch of $50 bills together in the same envelope, the political campaign or organization has no reason to dig into a bunch of $50-containing envelopes (or BTC transactions) unless there's something very suspicious about it. Unless someone's indicating they're running afoul of the law, people are generally allowed to take others' word in good faith.
The Gox-Coinlab suit has a similar issue. CL allegedly told Gox they were properly licensed (or would become licensed -- Gox's statement seems to claim both, but maybe I misread). Gox took this in good faith, which they are allowed to do. Gox isn't and wasn't required by US law to verify everything CL says was absolutely true. Gox didn't have to demand CL's MSB licenses for all 50 states. When Gox decided to back out of the deal, one of the key reasons they gave was that they looked into it and found CL was not fully licensed, so the deal would've been unlawful and is thus void. It's hard to believe Gox did not already know CL wasn't fully licensed, but they signed the contract anyway, probably thinking this excuse to back out was an asset, which it may turn out to be.
The US is increasingly creeping toward a society where every allegation has to be fact-checked by the Surveillance State, with the AML/KYC/BSA laws being thrust into the average joes' awareness thanks to registered BTC exchanges - but we're not completely there, yet. (ETA: I tried to indirectly hint that SM shouldn't be liable for taking lies in good faith when there's no indication it's a lie, but just so it's explicit... - and since I went this far with it - IANAL disclosure, I'm just looking for free legal consultation challenging me if I'm spouting off a ton of misinfo)
Trying to forge your way into this fund seems like a silly thing to do. You are putting yourself and the fund at jeopardy. If you have the skills to forge the documents you have the skills to invest 25K in Bitcoin without having to have SecondMarket hold your hand.
This is a stupid conversation to be having on a public forum, anyway. Please think people.
There are no documents to forge. There are boxes to enter in your income, investments, and net worth, similar to how "liar loans" worked.