Howard A. Fischer and Samuel A. Goodstein authored an article titled, "The Evolving Enforcement Ecosystem – The SEC’s Retreat That Isn’t," which was published in Global Relay Intelligence & Practice.

New report could suggest a retreat from digital asset enforcement. That conclusion would be understandable – and wrong. 

The SEC just announced (somewhat later than is typical), its enforcement results for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2025. In a radical break from previous reports, it trumpeted the significant reduction in cases brought, instead of heralding recent enforcement triumphs.

Proclaiming that the SEC would now focus on cases involving actual fraud with direct investor harm, the report differentiated past enforcement cases, including those involving crypto firms, as resulting from a “misinterpretation of the federal securities laws [and] a misallocation of Commission resources.” Along with the Commission’s dropping of cases involving prominent crypto firms, the report could suggest a retreat from digital asset enforcement. That conclusion would be understandable – and wrong.

First, recognition of digital assets as a legitimate asset class does not signal regulatory leniency. Traditional securities – stocks, bonds, partnership interests – are unquestionably legitimate, yet they remain the subject of constant enforcement activity. Indeed, even with a far more limited enforcement mandate, the SEC has recently brought multiple actions in the digital asset space including offering fraud claims; and alleged large scale investment scams involving digital assets.

Second, the normalization of digital assets does not entail a regulatory hands-off, but instead the exact opposite. The creation, by multiple different agencies, of an entirely new regulatory framework and the utilization of novel apparatuses to govern crypto will enhance enforcement opportunities in accordance with clearly delineated guidelines.