In recent news, Ripple Labs has been embroiled in a lawsuit with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over allegations that the company sold XRP as an unregistered security. However, attorney and XRP supporter, Jeremy Hogan, has stated that the SEC has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that XRP is a security.

According to Hogan, XRP cannot fit into the legislative definition of security. He argues that XRP is not a stock or bond, and can only “POSSIBLY fit under the definition of an ‘investment contract’”. Furthermore, the attorney asserts that the SEC has not proven that there was a contract of investment for investors in XRP.

Hogan explains that the SEC has failed to argue that there was an implied or explicit contract of investment in the Ripple case. Instead, the regulatory agency argues that the purchase agreement is all that is required. However, this argument tears the ‘investment’ from the ‘contract’, and Hogan believes that a simple purchase without an obligation for Ripple to do anything except transfer the asset cannot be considered an ‘investment contract’.

Hogan clarifies that securities laws were not created to prevent investors from making bad decisions but to require that companies make certain disclosures regarding the contract that the purchaser is entering. Therefore, the issue at hand is whether the SEC has proven that there was either an implied or explicit “contract” between Ripple and XRP purchasers relating to their ‘investment’, which Hogan claims the SEC has not.