The dispute over frozen cryptocurrency assets in Singapore is heating up as users demand the company return their funds.
The lawsuit revolves around the freezing of un-hacked assets, while there are suspicions that the so-called 'hack' did not actually occur and many funds were misused.
MAIN CONTENT
Users are suing the cryptocurrency asset management company branch in Singapore for freezing un-hacked assets.
Evidence suggests that the hack may not have been externally executed but rather internal, raising disputes about responsibility.
The Singapore court rejected the company's handling plan, emphasizing that users' ownership of assets remains protected.
What is the main issue of the dispute concerning the frozen cryptocurrency assets?
Legal expert Romy Johnson previously issued a statement asserting that user assets were improperly categorized into types of un-hacked coins, fiat money, and hacked money, leading to an unreasonable freeze. According to Singapore law, only debts can be restructured, but user-owned assets should not be interfered with.
The company's practice in Singapore of pooling user assets for restructuring has sparked strong reactions from the cryptocurrency community, as this severely impacts personal rights.
Is the hack real or just an internal misunderstanding?
Blockchain data shows that coins were transferred through internal multi-signature wallets rather than an external attack. There is no clear evidence of an external breach.
“The suspicious cryptocurrency movements are believed to stem from internal multi-signature wallets rather than an external hacker attack, raising many questions about transparency and management responsibility.”
Romy Johnson, Cryptocurrency Attorney, 2024
Users are demanding the company disclose the name of the person who approved these transactions and conduct a comprehensive audit to determine responsible parties.
What is the current legal situation in the Singapore court?
The Singapore Supreme Court rejected the company's first restructuring plan due to concealing links with a shell company abroad. Romy Johnson also cited multiple case laws affirming that cryptocurrency assets held in trust still belong to the users, even in bankruptcy cases.
The next hearing has been postponed to July 15, 2025, extending users' wait for a fair resolution.
Will the company refund the users?
The company representative committed to refunding once the new restructuring plan is approved, however, users remain skeptical due to many previous unfulfilled promises.
“Promises cannot replace reality; users need to take effective action to protect their assets, not just empty words.”
Cryptocurrency financial consultant Jane Doe, 2024
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are cryptocurrency assets frozen when they have not been hacked?
The improper categorization of assets during the restructuring process led to the freezing of un-hacked assets, violating users' legal ownership rights.
Did the hack actually occur?
On-chain data shows no signs of an external attack, as transactions were approved from internal multi-signature wallets.
How is ownership of cryptocurrency assets protected under Singapore law?
Singapore law and case law have established that cryptocurrency assets held in trust still belong to the users, even if the company goes bankrupt.
When will the next hearing take place?
The next hearing is scheduled for July 15, 2025, according to the official announcement from the Singapore court.
How to ensure cryptocurrency assets are safe when trading?
It is advisable to use a personal wallet with exclusive control over the private key and choose a reputable, transparent exchange to mitigate the risk of freezing or losing funds.
Source: https://tintucbitcoin.com/wazirx-bi-kien-vi-dong-bang-quy/
Thank you for reading this article!
Please Like, Comment, and Follow TinTucBitcoin to stay updated with the latest news about the cryptocurrency market and not miss any important information!
