Home / Education / Crypto / Regulation / SEC vs. Unicoin: Inside the $100M Crypto Allegations
Regulation
8 min read
intermediate

SEC vs. Unicoin: Inside the $100M Crypto Allegations

Published
Dr. Lorena Nessi
Published

Key Takeaways

  • The SEC accused Unicoin of misleading investors and selling unregistered securities.
  • Unicoin’s claims about raising $3 billion and being asset-backed are under dispute.
  • Konanykhin’s remarks on the $TRUMP coin airdrop reflect growing concerns about the SEC’s shifting stance and the industry’s view of inconsistent regulation.
  • The lawsuit could change how token sales are structured and disclosed in the U.S.

Crypto fundraising is under pressure in the U.S.. With Donald Trump signaling support for crypto, there is hope that regulation will become clearer and more industry-friendly. 

Despite the SEC’s leadership change, with Paul Atkins replacing Gary Gensler, the agency has a pending case that could set new standards for how tokens are offered to the public. 

It has also raised questions about how other tokens, including some linked to Trump’s circle, were launched and whether similar methods, such as giveaways or promotions, could face scrutiny.

On May 20, 2025, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Unicoin, charging the company with conducting a $100 million fraudulent offering. Unicoin promoted its token as backed by equity in pre-Initial Public Offering (IPO) companies and real estate. 

The fundraising model shares features with Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), which the SEC has repeatedly challenged in past enforcement actions.

A key part of Unicoin’s marketing was its claim of being “asset-backed.” While many ICOs offer utility tokens without links to real-world value, Unicoin said its token was supported by real estate and equity in private companies. 

These claims are central to the SEC’s fraud case, which says the backing was mostly fraudulent and misled investors.

Unicoin Inc. was founded by Alex Konanykhin, who spoke to CCN about the case and responded to the SEC’s claims.

This article explains the lawsuit, presents a timeline of events, outlines both sides of the argument, includes Konanykhin’s comments, and looks at the possible impact on future crypto fundraising.

Timeline of the Alleged Violations

The SEC’s case against Unicoin focuses on how the company marketed and sold its token over several years. 

Below is a timeline of key events leading up to the formal lawsuit:

2021–2023 Global Promotion and Sales

The SEC claims that Unicoin marketed its token as backed by real estate and equity in pre-IPO companies. 

According to the agency, the company issued “rights certificates” to over 5,000 buyers, promising they would later convert into Unicoin tokens. 

The SEC also says Unicoin claimed to have raised more than $3 billion, but the actual amount was closer to $110 million. It further alleges that neither the certificates nor the tokens were registered, despite the company’s public statements.

2024: $40 Million New York Ad Campaign and a “Retreat Under Pressure”

Unicoin launched an extensive billboard campaign across New York City. The company described it as a public awareness effort during the SEC’s “War on Crypto.”

Konanykhin alleges that, “having passed two exhaustive SEC investigations with flying colors, I hoped that the SEC would see Unicoin as a fully compliant, ‘Made in the USA’ alternative to the non-compliant foreign cryptocurrencies, and make it their poster child of crypto.”

He further argues that Unicoin, as a “Made in the USA” alternative to what he calls the “antiquated Bitcoin”, could be “on track to become a trillion-dollar cryptocurrency.

Konanykhin claims that Unicoin’s visibility and rapid growth in the U.S. drew unwanted attention from regulators. 

He said the SEC launched a disruptive investigation that targeted not only Unicoin staff but also their “auditors, outside lawyers and consultants, bankers, brokers, and investors,” which harmed many of the company’s business relationships.

According to Konanykhin, the SEC pressured Unicoin to stop operating in the U.S. He responded, “feeling powerless to resist their War on Crypto, I surrendered to their ultimatum in July of 2024 and the SEC faded away.”

In December 2024, the SEC issued a Wells Notice to Unicoin, warning of possible enforcement action. The agency raised concerns about allegedly misleading statements and the structure of the token sale.

SEC Settlement Breakdown, ICO Announcement, and Lawsuit Fallout

Konanykhin said the lawsuit followed its ad campaign and targeted a fully compliant project. The company also said it is the only U.S. crypto firm that became a publicly reporting entity, with six years of audited reports filed and over $10 million spent on compliance. 

  • The SEC scheduled a settlement discussion for April 18, 2025. Unicoin did not attend, stating that the terms were one-sided and that it planned to fight the charges.
  • On April 22, 2025, CEO Alex Konanykhin publicly rejected the SEC’s proposal. He said the case was politically motivated and claimed that Unicoin had operated transparently.
  • On May 14, 2025, Konanykhin announced Unicoin’s plan to launch an ICO in June. He said the SEC retaliated almost immediately by filing a lawsuit.
  • On May 20, 2025, the SEC charged Unicoin and its executives with conducting a $100 million fraudulent offering. The charges include false claims about asset backing, overstated fundraising figures, and selling unregistered securities.

Unicoin responded that the lawsuit came after its high-profile ad campaign and unfairly targeted a fully compliant project. The company also stated that it is the only crypto firm in the U.S. to become a publicly reporting entity, with six years of audited reports filed and over $10 million spent on compliance.

Trump’s Crypto Push and Konanykhin’s Defense and Public Statements

According to Konanykhin, when Unicoin announced its “intent to list Unicoin on crypto and stock exchanges in 2024,” the SEC responded with “blatantly false charges to preclude our public launch.”

He claims that the agency’s stance on token distribution shifted shortly afterward. “After President Trump’s crypto team conducted an airdrop of the TRUMP coin,” Konanykhin said, “the SEC suddenly lost interest in pursuing enforcement against airdrops.”

He also argues that Donald Trump “is steadfast in his efforts to make America the Crypto Capital of the World,” but claims it is “well-known that Gary Gensler left ‘moles’ tasked with sabotaging the President’s efforts.”

What the Unicoin Case Means for Crypto Fundraising

The SEC’s lawsuit against Unicoin raises new concerns for how crypto projects raise capital and communicate with the public. It adds pressure on asset-backed claims, token sales, and promotional activities.

  • Projects must prove asset backing: Without supporting evidence, the SEC alleges Unicoin promoted asset backing from real estate and equity in companies before an IPO. Similar future offerings will likely receive heightened regulatory attention.
  • Marketing must match financial records: Unicoin said it raised $3 billion, but the SEC argues the figure was closer to $110 million. Regulators might focus more on the accuracy of fundraising statements.
  • Securities laws apply to token rights: The SEC treated Unicoin’s rights certificates as unregistered securities. Promises of future tokens tied to profits or returns may fall under existing securities definitions.
  • Asset-linked tokens face higher standards: Unicoin’s model raised legal concerns even without a formal security token offering (STO) structure. This puts in question projects referencing asset backing, which could be held to the same disclosure and compliance standards as traditional securities.
  • Airdrops may be reviewed: Trump’s TRUMP token airdrop was tied to merchandise purchases. While not part of this lawsuit, similar promotions could be reviewed if they include misleading claims or resemble securities offerings.
  • Regulatory enforcement may intersect with politics: Statements from Unicoin’s founder referenced political bias and regulatory inconsistency. Regardless of those views, the case reflects tension and interaction between politics and crypto.

Finally, the outcome of this case may influence how future token sales are structured, marketed, and regulated. It shows that legal definitions, disclosures, and compliance remain central to crypto fundraising in the U.S.

Conclusion

The Unicoin case raises serious questions about how crypto projects market tokens, especially when claiming asset backing or SEC compliance.

It highlights growing regulatory pressure on token fundraising, false claims, and promotional tactics like airdrops. 

As the case progresses, it may set new expectations for transparency, disclosures, and legal standards in the U.S. crypto sector.

FAQs

Is Unicoin a stablecoin?

No. It’s not pegged to a fixed currency like USDt or USDC. Its price depends on perceived backing, not a reserve that maintains stability.

Who is behind Unicoin?

Alex Konanykhin, a Russian-born entrepreneur with a background in tech and finance, co-founded and leads the project.

What happens if Unicoin loses the SEC case?

The company could face major fines, be forced to halt operations, and its executives may face bans.

Why does the SEC say Unicoin violated the law?

It allegedly sold unregistered securities while misleading investors about the token’s legal and financial status.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, financial advice. We do not make any warranties regarding the completeness, reliability, or accuracy of this information. All investments involve risk, and past performance does not guarantee future results. We recommend consulting a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
Was this Article helpful? Yes No
Dr. Lorena Nessi is an award-winning journalist and media technology expert with 15 years of experience in digital culture and communication. Based in Oxfordshire, UK, she combines academic insight with hands-on media practice. She holds a PhD in Communication, Sociology, and Digital Cultures, and an MA in Globalization, Identity, and Technology. Lorena has taught at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Nottingham Trent University, and the University of Oxford. She is a former producer for the BBC in London, with additional experience creating television content in Mexico and Japan. Her research focuses on digital cultures, social media, technology, capitalism, and the societal impact of blockchain innovation. She has written extensively on digital media and emerging technologies, with her work featured in both academic and media platforms. Her Web3 expertise explores how blockchain technologies shape culture, economics, and decentralized systems. Outside of work, Lorena enjoys reading science fiction, playing strategic board games, traveling, and chasing adventures that get her heart racing. A perfect day ends with a relaxing spa and a good family meal.
See more