Tag: Court

  • Cryptocurrency is as ‘property’ under Indian law, rules Madras High Court

    Cryptocurrency is as ‘property’ under Indian law, rules Madras High Court

    Madras High Court rules cryptocurrency is a “property”

    • Madras High Court confirms crypto can be owned and held in trust.
    • WazirX has been barred from redistributing investors’ unaffected XRP holdings.
    • Ruling strengthens investor rights and Web3 governance in India.

    In a landmark ruling that could reshape cryptocurrency in India, the Madras High Court has declared that cryptocurrencies qualify as property under Indian law.

    The Court’s decision, delivered by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, affirms that cryptocurrencies can be owned, held in trust, and protected as legal property — a major step in clarifying the legal status of digital assets in the country.

    Cryptocurrency in India now recognised as property

    The case arose from a petition by an investor whose 3,532.30 XRP coins were frozen after a cyberattack on WazirX, one of India’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges.

    In July 2024, the platform suffered a $234 million hack involving Ethereum and ERC-20 tokens.

    While the investor’s XRP holdings were not part of the stolen assets, WazirX sought to redistribute all users’ funds under its so-called “socialisation of losses” plan.

    Justice Venkatesh firmly rejected the proposal, ruling that each investor’s digital holdings are individual property and cannot be diluted or redistributed to cover exchange losses.

    He emphasised that cryptocurrencies, though intangible, possess all the essential attributes of property — they are identifiable, transferable, and exclusively controlled through private keys.

    “It is not a tangible property nor is it a currency,” the judge observed. “However, it is a property, which is capable of being enjoyed and possessed in a beneficial form.”

    This interpretation grants digital asset holders stronger legal standing, ensuring that their cryptocurrencies are recognised as assets protected under Indian law.

    Jurisdiction and investor protection

    The Court also settled questions over jurisdiction, dismissing WazirX’s argument that Singaporean arbitration rules applied because its parent company, Zettai Pte Ltd, is based in Singapore.

    Justice Venkatesh cited the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in PASL Wind Solutions Pvt Ltd v. GE Power Conversion India Pvt Ltd (2021), noting that Indian courts have authority over assets located within India.

    Because the investor’s transactions originated from Chennai and involved an Indian bank account, the Court confirmed that the case fell squarely under Indian jurisdiction.

    The court further highlighted that Zanmai Labs Pvt Ltd, which operates WazirX in India, is registered with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) — unlike its foreign parent company or Binance.

    This distinction reinforced that Indian exchanges operating domestically are subject to Indian oversight and accountability, particularly in protecting user assets and maintaining transparent custodial practices.

    Strengthening Web3 governance

    Justice Venkatesh’s decision went beyond individual relief to call for higher standards of corporate governance in the Web3 and crypto sectors.

    He urged exchanges to maintain separate client funds, conduct independent audits, and uphold robust KYC and anti-money laundering controls.

    These measures, the Court noted, are vital for building trust in the digital economy and protecting consumers from future mishandling of assets.

    Legal experts hailed the judgment as a milestone in developing “crypto-jurisprudence” in India.

    Vikram Subburaj, CEO of Indian exchange Giottus, described it as a foundational moment that signals to all market participants — exchanges, users, and regulators — that the digital asset space will be held to strong standards of governance and protection.

    A foundation for India’s crypto future

    The Court’s ruling not only protects the rights of individual investors but also strengthens the broader regulatory framework around digital assets.

    By recognising cryptocurrency as property, the judgment fills a crucial legal gap in a country where tax enforcement on crypto remains strict, but investor protections have lagged.

    As Justice Venkatesh wrote, courts now serve as the “central stage where the future of digital value is debated.”

    Through this ruling, the Madras High Court has given India a clearer picture of ownership, responsibility, and trust in the age of decentralisation.

    With cryptocurrency in India now firmly recognised as property under Indian law, the decision marks a turning point for the country’s digital asset ecosystem — affirming that in India, crypto holdings are not just speculative instruments but protected assets under the law.

    Source link

  • Celsius vs Tether lawsuit moves ahead in US court over $4 billion Bitcoin sale

    Celsius vs Tether lawsuit moves ahead in US court over $4 billion Bitcoin sale

    Celsius vs Tether lawsuit moves ahead in US court over $4 billion Bitcoin sale

    • Celsius claims Tether’s 2022 Bitcoin sale broke contract terms.
    • Over 39,500 BTC were liquidated at $20,656 average price.
    • Claims include breach of contract and fraudulent transfer.

    Celsius Network’s efforts to hold Tether accountable for a $4 billion Bitcoin liquidation just cleared a major hurdle in US court.

    A bankruptcy judge has now allowed Celsius to proceed with legal action against Tether, despite the stablecoin giant’s attempts to halt the case on jurisdictional grounds.

    The lawsuit centres on claims that Tether prematurely and unfairly sold nearly 40,000 BTC during Celsius’s collapse in mid-2022, in breach of a contractual agreement and US bankruptcy laws.

    The ruling could mark a turning point for how global crypto firms are treated in American courts, especially when assets are involved that were managed, sold, or transferred through US-linked systems.

    While the court dismissed some peripheral allegations, it upheld key claims, including breach of contract and fraudulent transfer, allowing Celsius’s case to continue.

    Celsius accuses Tether of early Bitcoin liquidation breach

    The dispute dates back to June 2022, when Celsius was already reeling from the broader crypto market crash. Court filings reveal that Tether had lent money to Celsius and, in return, received collateral in Bitcoin.

    Celsius now alleges that Tether liquidated 39,500 BTC at an average price of $20,656 without providing the contractually required 10-hour notice period.

    The assets, according to Celsius, were liquidated during a time of extreme market volatility, and sold significantly below market value. Celsius claims the early sale resulted in a loss of over $4 billion based on current Bitcoin prices.

    Moreover, the company alleges that Tether later transferred the liquidated BTC to Bitfinex, a platform operated by Tether’s sister company, raising concerns around related-party dealings and asset custody.

    US court rejects Tether’s jurisdictional challenge

    In its defence, Tether had argued that the case should be thrown out because it operates from the British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong. The company said US courts had no jurisdiction over its business.

    However, the judge disagreed, pointing to the fact that Tether used US-based staff, bank accounts, and communication systems in its dealings with Celsius.

    The court ruled that Tether’s actions were sufficiently “domestic” to fall under US legal scrutiny.

    This decision now paves the way for Celsius to pursue several key legal charges including breach of contract, fraudulent transfer, and preferential treatment of certain creditors—allegations that strike at the core of how digital asset lenders and stablecoin issuers operate.

    Broader implications for crypto lending and stablecoin governance

    Legal experts say the outcome of this case could influence the regulatory treatment of stablecoin issuers, particularly in the US.

    If Celsius is able to demonstrate that Tether mismanaged client assets or failed to honour notice periods during market stress, it may prompt calls for stricter oversight on asset liquidation procedures, especially for offshore firms operating through US financial infrastructure.

    The case may also set a precedent for future cross-border lending disputes and clarify whether offshore crypto companies can be held accountable in US bankruptcy proceedings.

    The outcome could therefore impact how other large digital asset firms manage collateral and liquidity risk during market downturns.

    Tether grows market presence amid legal scrutiny

    Despite the ongoing legal challenges, Tether has continued to expand its footprint in the crypto sector. The company recently acquired a majority stake in Twenty One Capital, a firm associated with Strike CEO Jack Mallers.

    This move connects Tether to the third-largest corporate Bitcoin holder globally.

    In another significant development, Tether transferred around 37,230 BTC—currently worth $3.9 billion—to addresses associated with its trading operations.

    The company appears to be consolidating its Bitcoin reserves even as it navigates the legal fallout from the Celsius collapse.

    Meanwhile, speculation continues over Tether’s valuation and a possible initial public offering.

    However, CEO Paolo Ardoino has denied any plans for a public listing, stating that the firm is not preparing for an IPO despite rumoured valuations nearing $500 billion.

    As the Celsius case moves into the next phase, attention will remain on how Tether responds to mounting legal pressure in one of the largest financial disputes in crypto history.

    Source link

  • Court gives Coinbase the green light to delist Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC)

    Court gives Coinbase the green light to delist Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC)

    Court gives Coinbase the green light to delist Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC)
    • A US federal judge has allowed Coinbase to delist WBTC despite BiT Global’s objections.
    • Judge Martínez-Olguín denied BiT Global’s TRO, citing lack of evidence of harm.
    • Despite the delisting and Coinbase launching cbBTC, WBTC dominates the wrapped digital assets market with an 85% share.

    In a pivotal legal decision, a California federal judge has ruled in favour of cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, allowing it to proceed with the planned delisting of Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC).

    The ruling, delivered by Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, came after a contentious legal battle initiated by BiT Global, a digital asset custodian partly owned by Tron founder Justin Sun.

    The BiT Global lawsuit against Coinbase for WBTC delisting

    The dispute began in November 2024 when Coinbase announced its intention to delist WBTC, citing concerns over its association with Justin Sun.

    Sun, a controversial figure in the crypto space, has faced allegations of fraud and market manipulation.

    BiT Global responded by filing a $1 billion lawsuit against Coinbase on antitrust grounds, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the delisting. The firm argued that the move would destabilize WBTC’s market and cause substantial financial harm to investors.

    Temporary restraining order (TRO) declined

    During a virtual hearing on December 18, Judge Martínez-Olguín denied BiT Global’s request for a TRO, ruling that the company failed to provide sufficient evidence of imminent and irreparable harm. She noted that BiT Global’s delay in filing the lawsuit after Coinbase’s initial announcement weakened its case.

    In its defence, Coinbase pointed to BiT Global’s refusal to disclose ownership details and concerns about Sun’s influence over the token’s integrity.

    While the court left open the possibility for BiT Global to present stronger evidence in the future, the decision effectively cleared the path for Coinbase to delist WBTC as planned on December 19.

    Notably, WBTC’s delisting comes amid Coinbase’s recent launch of its own wrapped bitcoin token, cbBTC, raising questions about competitive motives.

    Despite the controversy, WBTC continues to dominate the wrapped bitcoin market, holding 85% of the Ethereum network’s market share.

    Source link

  • UK High Court Judge rules against Craig Wright over Bitcoin copyright claims

    UK High Court Judge rules against Craig Wright over Bitcoin copyright claims

    UK High Court rules against Craig Wright over Bitcoin (BTC) copyright claims

    The UK High Court has delivered a damning verdict against Craig Wright, a controversial figure claiming to be the elusive creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto.

    Judge James Mellor, in a written judgment, asserted that Wright had lied “extensively and repeatedly” throughout the trial, further accusing him of presenting “fabricated” evidence to support his claims.

    COPA wins against Craig Wright

    Judge Mellor’s ruling serves as a culmination of a protracted legal battle that has spanned several years.

    The lawsuit, brought forth by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), aimed to challenge Craig Wright’s assertions of ownership over the intellectual rights to Bitcoin’s code and whitepaper.

    Wright’s purported attempts to lay claim to these foundational aspects of the cryptocurrency ecosystem have been met with scepticism and legal resistance from various quarters.

    Wright’s litigious nature, characterized by numerous lawsuits against developers and individuals critical of his claims, has raised concerns within the Bitcoin community.

    However, Mellor acknowledged the adverse impact of Wright’s aggressive legal strategy on Bitcoin developers, stating that Satoshi Nakamoto, known for a collaborative and non-confrontational approach, would unlikely resort to litigation.

    Fabrications and forgeries of documents

    The judgment highlighted Wright’s alleged fabrications and forgeries of documents on a significant scale, all in support of his central claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

    The judge characterized Wright’s actions as “clumsy” and underscored the pivotal role these falsehoods played in shaping the trial’s outcome.

    COPA, formed with the primary objective of defending the open nature of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, contested Wright’s assertions, arguing that such claims could stifle innovation and deter developers from contributing to the Bitcoin network.

    Throughout the trial, evidence emerged casting doubt on the authenticity of Wright’s claims.

    Documents submitted by Wright’s defence purportedly supporting his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto were scrutinized, revealing inconsistencies and anomalies.

    Fonts that did not exist at the alleged time of their creation and metadata indicating recent document alterations were among the discrepancies cited in Judge Mellor’s judgment.

    Perjury charges loom over Craig Wright

    The legal saga surrounding Craig Wright has been closely monitored by the cryptocurrency community, given its potential ramifications for the future of Bitcoin and the broader blockchain space.

    While Craig Wright has announced on X that he will be appealing the ruling, the ruling represents a significant setback for his ambitions, with the possibility of perjury charges looming over him.

    In response to the verdict, COPA hailed the decision as a victory for open innovation and the principles upon which Bitcoin was founded.

    The alliance reiterated its commitment to safeguarding the decentralized nature of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, vowing to continue its efforts to protect against unwarranted copyright claims.

    As the dust settles on this legal showdown, the broader implications of Judge Mellor’s ruling reverberate across the cryptocurrency landscape.

    The verdict not only underscores the importance of transparency and integrity within the community but also serves as a cautionary tale against attempts to monopolize or control foundational elements of decentralized technologies like Bitcoin.



    Source link