Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Inside Cryptocurrency Pump-and-Dump Schemes
Cryptocurrency pump-and-dump schemes (CPDs) are becoming increasingly prevalent. As in the case of traditional "pump and dump" schemes, CPDs lead to short-term trading perturbations — exaggerated increases and/or decreases in prices, volume, or volatility. Prices peak or bottom out within a short time span and are usually accompanied by quick reversals, resulting in a manipulated inflation or deflation of an asset's price, usually accomplished via misleading recommendations. Since the inception of cryptocurrency as a widely traded asset, there has been increasing opportunity to make money through market manipulation, specifically through classic pump-and-dump and related fraudulent schemes, and more specifically CPDs.
While pump-and-dump schemes are common in traditional financial markets, cryptocurrency exchanges provide new and additional markets and methods to facilitate this practice. Though CPDs are new, CPD scammers utilize both traditional and novel implementation programs.
Traditional CPD programs employ email spam campaigns, social media fake press releases, and telemarketing. Novel CPD implementation programs vary widely, but they commonly include buying or selling crypto futures at above or below market in a particular cryptocurrency, and then spreading positive or negative rumors, typically via Discord and other apps, about said cryptocurrency in an attempt to manipulate its value.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.