IANAL but this is an interesting legal precedent if true. Since this was an out of court settlement I assume there are no public records of the decision?
it wasn't out of court, this is the SEC's modus operandi
there's no precedent here, the government always does stuff like this
they got bullied in a civil case, the prosecutor caught them in a lie as they misjudged how the US government will nail them, and then they accepted a settlement deal
The SEC's problem is that their interpretation of laws are very nuanced and they need to avoid jury trials and appeals courts at all costs. Financial crimes are hard to prove and it is hard to determine if they are actually crimes. Yes the executive branch (SEC) says "acting like this is criminal wrongdoing so we will try you in civil court and also tell the Department of Justice", and this is reflected in the social contract that people imagine to be so, but the judicial branch and the constitution doesn't necessarily have a way to agree with the SEC. The jury in the lower trial courts are also hard to convince, because proving intent and proving which law was broken is extremely hard, all while going up against the wealthiest defendants on the planet.
The SEC does no-admit no-deny settlements because of this. The negotiation amounts are very informal between lawyers. So just kickback and relax, emphasis on kickback.
That Ukrainian voluntarily came to clear their name and got tripped up during cross examination. Stay opened up to a perjury charge or advance towards "settling" with the US just like their "perpetual settlement" with Ukranian authorities.
