Андрей Воронин – Compliance marketing in Web3 (страница 2)

Collect an evidence package in two layers: mandatory and backup.

Ilya forms two sets. Mandatory ones are those without which the court won’t understand the facts—backup ones close loopholes.

Specific documents he collects in the “Investor X Facts Package”:

• The agreement/offer/contract under which the investor paid;

• An appendix with terms and risks (if any);

• An archive of marketing materials as of the publication date (a dated screenshot or page export);

• correspondence with the investor before the payment date (email/messenger/CRM log);

• internal approvals of wording (minutes or a lawyer/compliance letter with approval of a risk disclaimer);

• Confirmation of the fact that materials were delivered to the investor (a letter with a link, a letter with an attachment, and a sending log).

Expected result: you show the court a controlled history, not a collection of unrelated files.

Prepare a negotiation position in parallel with the court work.

Ilya prepares a short response to the investor, but not “at any cost to make peace.” He frames the position like this: we acknowledge disputed facts only where the evidence matches, and we propose discussing a settlement method tied to documents.

For example, he suggests: if the investor insists on specific wording, have him provide the exact quote and publication date, and the project will provide an archived version of the material with the date.

Expected result: you move negotiations from the emotional plane to the documentary plane and reduce the risk that the court will see you as “not responding to the facts.”

Align the court tactics and a plan for procedural actions.

Ilya makes three decisions before filing/receiving procedural documents:

a) Chooses which evidence to attach immediately to the response;

b) Determines on which issues to ask the court to order documents;

c) Prepares a template of objections to typical arguments: “guarantee of returns” and “risks were not disclosed.”

Expected result: you don’t miss procedural deadlines, and you avoid a situation where you “will supplement later,” while the court is already working with the case materials.

Quick checklist

• Appoint a crisis coordinator and a single point of external contact.

• Break down the claim into disputed facts: assertion → required confirmation.

• Collect a “Facts Package” from mandatory and backup documents, with dates and versions.

• Prepare a documentary negotiation position: request exact quotes and dates.

• Decide in advance what you will attach to the response and on which issues you will ask the court to order documents.

Practical takeaway: in a crisis, the winner is the one who turns the conflict into a verifiable map of facts. If Ilya, in the first 24 hours, receives a structured package of documents and a procedural line, he wins not in “the beauty of speech,” but in evidence discipline.

Typical mistakes and edge cases when assembling a legal shield

Errors in a crisis usually repeat. Below you’ll find the most frequent scenarios and targeted fixes in the logic of the RWA Shield Map.

Mistake: “We’ll collect all files and attach them”

What happens: The team uploads dozens of folders without structure or links to specific disputed facts. The court and the opponent don’t get answers to the questions “who/what/when/based on what,” and you look like a party trying to drown in volume.

Do this: Return to the list of disputed facts and collect, for each fact, the minimum sufficient confirmation. Remove duplicates and mark document versions.

Do this: Make a matrix “fact → document → page/fragment.”

Not this: attach “the whole drive” without showing where exactly the confirmation is.

Mistake: The team responds to the investor in parallel and gives contradictory wording

What happens: In the correspondence, different interpretations of the same condition appear (for example, about financial expectations or risks). In court, the opponent uses this as “an admission of inconsistency.”

Do this: Introduce a “single voice” mode. The crisis coordinator approves the wording; those responsible for evidence may not send external letters without approval.

Do this: Set the rule that an external message is sent only after verification against the checklist of terms and dates.

Not this: Let each employee write to the investor “in their own words” without oversight.

Mistake: You prepare a legal position, but you don’t prepare a procedural response to the court’s request

What happens: You’re morally ready to argue, but you miss procedural deadlines, don’t file motions, and don’t respond to clarification of requirements or requests for documents. The court

Interprets this as passivity.

Do this: Create a “procedural roadmap” for the next actions after receiving the statement of claim or a court order.

Do this: Record dates and assign responsible persons for each procedural action (response, motions, attachments, collection of confirmations).

Not this: Count on “finishing later,” while the court is already working with the case materials.

Practical takeaway: your legal shield breaks not because of weak arguments, but because of weak discipline. Restore control in evidence, communications, and procedure.

By the end of this chapter, you should have a working framework: you are not just “preparing for trial,” but assembling verifiable evidence, maintaining a single voice in negotiations, and planning procedural steps.

Next, we will go deeper into how to protect the project from regulatory risks and build a position with fewer points of entry.

CHAPTER 2. REGULATORY RISKS: SEC, MICA, AND THE CENTRAL BANK OF RUSSIA

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «Литрес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на Литрес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.