SEC vs. Trendon Shavers

Brief Summary of the Case (IRAC)

Issue: Whether Trendon Shavers and his company, Bitcoin Savings and Trust (BTCST), violated federal securities laws by operating a Ponzi scheme, which promised high returns on investments in Bitcoin-related opportunities but used new investors’ bitcoins to pay existing investors.

Rule: Under federal securities laws, including the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, an investment scheme constitutes a security if it meets the criteria established in the Howey Test: (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with the expectation of profit, (4) to be derived from the efforts of others.

Application: Shavers solicited bitcoins from investors, promising high return rates. His enterprise meets the Howey Test: (1) investors provided an investment of money (bitcoins), (2) they collectively invested in BTCST, a common enterprise, (3) with an expectation of substantial profit, which (4) depended largely on Shavers’ purported Bitcoin market arbitrage strategies, not the efforts of the investors themselves.

Conclusion: Shavers’ operation constituted a security offering under federal law, and by misrepresenting the nature of the investment and misallocating the funds, he engaged in fraudulent activities in violation of federal securities laws.

Detailed IRAC Outline of Relevant Facts and Discussion


The main legal issue is whether Shavers’ BTCST was engaged in the offering of securities without proper registration and whether it constituted a Ponzi scheme, violating the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.


  • The Securities Act of 1933 requires registration of all securities offerings unless an exemption applies.
  • The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits fraudulent activities in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.
  • The Howey Test outlines the criteria for an investment contract, which is considered a security.


Investment of Money
– Investors transferred bitcoins, which have value and are considered a form of money, to Shavers and BTCST.

Common Enterprise
– BTCST pooled the bitcoins collected from investors, indicating a common enterprise where the fortunes of individual investors were linked to the overall performance of the pool.

Expectation of Profit
– Shavers promised unusually high returns — up to 7% weekly — suggesting that profits were not just possible but likely, and investors clearly invested with the expectation of profit.

Efforts of Others
– The investors were passive, relying on Shavers’ supposed skill in Bitcoin market arbitrage to generate profits. They had no control over the investment or the strategies employed.

Misrepresentation and Fraud
– Evidence showed that Shavers made false statements regarding the use of funds, the nature of the investment, and the risk involved, which amounts to fraudulent activity.

Ponzi Scheme Indicators
– BTCST payouts to earlier investors were made using bitcoins from new investors rather than from profits of any legitimate operation, characteristic of a Ponzi scheme.


Shavers’ activities with BTCST met the definition of an investment contract under the Howey Test and thus constituted unregistered securities offerings. Furthermore, the operation of BTCST had all the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme, where returns promised to investors were paid from the capital of new investors, not from any underlying business activity. This lack of a legitimate revenue-generating business, combined with the misrepresentations made to investors, demonstrated a clear violation of federal securities laws.

Final Resolution
– The court found that Shavers and BTCST violated the securities registration and anti-fraud provisions. Shavers was ordered to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest, reflecting the gains from his unlawful conduct, and a civil penalty.

Further Discussion Points

  • The significance of recognizing virtual currencies as money for the purposes of securities regulation.
  • The application of traditional securities law to new financial instruments and digital assets.
  • The role of the SEC in protecting investors in emerging markets like cryptocurrency.
  • The importance of investor due diligence in high-risk investment opportunities.

This outline covers the SEC vs. Trendon Shavers case, detailing the legal reasoning behind the court’s decision based on federal securities laws and the Howey Test’s criteria for investment contracts.

Discover more from Legal Three

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading