A well-known cryptocurrency lender from Melbourne named Helio Lending got caught up in a legal knot. A non-conviction bond was given to the lender because of its false claims to hold an Australian credit licence (ACL), a crucial licence that demonstrates an institution’s trustworthiness in the financial industry.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), a regulatory organisation that monitors financial markets and businesses, brought Helio’s false information to light, resulting to this revelation. In particular, the lender declared publicly on its website that it was in possession of the ACL 391330 credit licence in August 2019. ASIC’s inquiries, however, revealed that Helio Lending not only lacked this licence but also wasn’t representing any ACL holder at the time of its pronouncement.
Such false statements have the potential to mislead potential consumers given the rise in popularity and incorporation of cryptocurrencies into traditional financial systems. Customers could utilise cryptocurrencies as security for their loans through Helio Lending, which had established a niche for itself by providing loans backed by cryptocurrencies. According to this approach, sincerity and trust are of utmost importance. Helio betrayed the confidence their customers had in them by lying about their licencing status.
The non-conviction bond amount for Helio is AUD 15,000 ($9,600), which must be repaid over a period of 12 months. Due to the nature of the bond, if Helio behaves well during this time, no more legal action is expected to be taken.
In a press release, Sarah Court, the Deputy Chair of ASIC, noted that Helio had falsely represented that it had an Australian Credit licence, leading their clients to believe that they were entitled to the safeguards provided by such a licence.
Investigating Helio’s operations further reveals that it operates as a division of the American giant Cyios Corporation. Additionally, Randombly, an emerging nonfungible token platform, is being steered by this business. The source of Helio’s lawsuit against the ACL is apparently its late-2018 purchase of Cash Flow Investments.
The implications of such deceptive representations are significant from a legal perspective. Section 19B(1)(d) of the Crimes Act of 1914(Cth) governs Helio’s punishment.
In addition, any institution that misrepresents an ACL is acting illegally because it directly violates section 30 of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.
In conclusion, as the world of cryptocurrencies continues to grow, it is crucial for institutions to uphold uncompromising transparency. Building and maintaining the trust of an ever-expanding audience of bitcoin enthusiasts and investors is equally important to regulatory compliance.