簡述美國法院對Ripple（瑞波）判決

（原文發表時間：2023/07/14；同步刊登在：https://pse.is/564rcz )

昨夜美國紐約南區法院對Ripple的判決，想必讓許多人心情為之一振，特別是有XRP的人，看到幣價大漲將近一倍，應該心情大好。不過在開心買幣或出貨之餘，還是和大家說明一下這個判決的主要內容，就判決中涉及XRP是否具證券性質的判決理由，摘要如下：

1. 法院審查了Ripple涉及銷售和發行XRP的各種交易和銷售計畫的情況，認為即使XRP表現出某種商品或貨幣的特性，它仍可能作為一種投資合約被銷售。

2. 法院分析了Ripple對XRP的機構銷售(institutional sales)，這些銷售是向專業投資人進行的。法院認為這些機構取得的XRP再通過市場管道將XRP分售到公開市場。由於機構投資人是以法幣或其他加密貨幣換取XRP，因此存在金錢投資的事實。

3. 法院接受了證券交易委員會（SEC）對機構銷售的判決請求(motion for summary judgment)，這意味著法院認為這些銷售違反了證券法令。然而，法院否決了SEC對程式自動化銷售(指智能合約)、其他分發以及Ripple創辦人(Larsen和Garlinghouse)的銷售的指控，這意味著法院並未認為這些銷售違反了證券法規。

4. 法院也處理了SEC對Ripple創辦人的幫忙及教唆違法行為的指控。要認定兩人證券違法的責任，SEC需要證明Ripple存在證券違法行為，教唆者和協助者知悉此違令行為，並且對實現主要違法行為方面提供了實質幫助。最終法院並未認為他們負有責任。

1) The court examined the totality of circumstances surrounding Ripple's different transactions and schemes involving the sale and distribution of XRP. The court found that even if XRP exhibits certain characteristics of a commodity or a currency, it may nonetheless be offered or sold as an investment contract.

2) The court analyzed Ripple’s Institutional Sales of XRP to sophisticated individuals and entities. The court found that these Institutional Sales were distributions of XRP into public markets through conduits. The court ruled that there was an investment of money as the Institutional Buyers provided fiat or other currency in exchange for XRP.

3) The court granted the SEC's motion for summary judgment as to the Institutional Sales, meaning the court found that these sales violated securities regulations. However, the court denied the SEC's motion for summary judgment for the Programmatic Sales, the Other Distributions, and Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s sales, meaning the court did not find these sales to be in violation of securities regulations.

4) The court also addressed the SEC's aiding and abetting claim against Larsen and Garlinghouse. To establish liability for aiding and abetting a securities violation, the SEC needed to show the existence of a securities law violation by the primary party, knowledge of this violation on the part of the aider and abettor, and substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in the achievement of the primary violation. The court did not find Larsen and Garlinghouse liable for aiding and abetting.