Scan to download
BTC $68,464.10 -0.45%
ETH $1,987.51 +1.52%
BNB $622.87 +1.18%
XRP $1.48 +0.90%
SOL $85.55 -0.64%
TRX $0.2849 +1.70%
DOGE $0.1008 -1.54%
ADA $0.2854 +1.88%
BCH $573.16 +3.25%
LINK $8.89 +1.98%
HYPE $30.52 +0.06%
AAVE $126.14 +0.90%
SUI $0.9871 +1.45%
XLM $0.1688 +0.07%
ZEC $292.25 -1.10%
BTC $68,464.10 -0.45%
ETH $1,987.51 +1.52%
BNB $622.87 +1.18%
XRP $1.48 +0.90%
SOL $85.55 -0.64%
TRX $0.2849 +1.70%
DOGE $0.1008 -1.54%
ADA $0.2854 +1.88%
BCH $573.16 +3.25%
LINK $8.89 +1.98%
HYPE $30.52 +0.06%
AAVE $126.14 +0.90%
SUI $0.9871 +1.45%
XLM $0.1688 +0.07%
ZEC $292.25 -1.10%

constitution

The Russian Constitutional Court ruled that the rules of property rights apply to cryptocurrency assets, and the rights of holders are confirmed by the judiciary

The Russian Constitutional Court recently ruled that cryptocurrency assets fall under the category of property protected by property rights, a decision that is expected to have far-reaching implications for future civil disputes and criminal cases involving cryptocurrency assets.Ignat Likhunov, head of the Russian law firm Cartesius, stated that this ruling provides clear legal grounds for law enforcement agencies and courts when dealing with issues related to stolen or disputed digital assets, and establishes an important precedent. The ruling also clarifies that as long as cryptocurrency assets are legally obtained, their property rights should be protected by the judiciary, even if they have not been declared to tax authorities.The case originated from a civil lawsuit filed by Moscow resident Dmitry Timchenko. In 2023, Timchenko lent 1,000 USDT to another party, but the latter failed to return it as agreed. A lower court had previously dismissed his claim on the grounds that "stablecoins are not within the scope of digital financial asset legislation." The Constitutional Court pointed out that failing to declare cryptocurrency assets does not automatically negate property rights, and the relevant declaration obligations only apply to miners.As this ruling comes into effect, Russia is advancing a new round of cryptocurrency regulatory legislation. Analysts believe that this judgment provides clearer judicial protection for cryptocurrency holders before the legislation is completed.

The South Korean academic community questions the restriction on the shareholding ratio of major shareholders in CEX: it may be unconstitutional and inconsistent with international practices

In response to the South Korean financial authorities' discussion on limiting the shareholding ratio of major shareholders in virtual asset exchanges to the range of 15% to 20%, several scholars expressed cautious attitudes at the seminar on "The Direction of Institutionalization of Stablecoin Issuance and Trading Infrastructure" held on January 16. Professor Moon Cheol-woo from Sungkyunkwan University's Business School pointed out that forcibly compressing the shareholding ratio of major shareholders may touch upon property rights protection issues, posing a risk of unconstitutionality.He also mentioned that comparing the equity structures of Binance and Coinbase, it is not uncommon globally for founders to maintain a high shareholding ratio, and such restrictive measures may contradict the international trend of emphasizing responsible management.Additionally, Professor Kim Yoon-kyung from Incheon University believes that directly intervening in the equity structure through ratio limits is too radical and may weaken the industry's innovation and development momentum. Several experts at the meeting suggested that regulatory authorities could guide equity dispersion and compliant development by strengthening the qualification review of major shareholders and improving IPO-related systems, rather than adopting mandatory divestiture arrangements.

The Russian Constitutional Court will rule on whether USDT enjoys property rights or serves as a judicial precedent for stablecoins

The Russian Constitutional Court is currently hearing a key case that will determine whether citizens have property rights over stablecoins such as USDT.Several regulatory experts have informed the court that fiat-backed stablecoins like USDT do not fall under the category of "digital financial assets" (DFA) according to Russian law, nor do they apply to domestic digital currency circulation rules. The case originated from Moscow resident Dmitry Timchenko, who lent 1,000 USDT in 2023 but was refused repayment by the other party. His appeals to the district court, the higher court, and the Supreme Court were all rejected, with the courts stating that stablecoins do not belong to the protected category of DFA. Timchenko subsequently appealed to the Constitutional Court, claiming that "no other asset class in Russia faces such restrictions." During the hearing, both the central bank and the anti-money laundering agency Rosfinmonitoring stated that stablecoins possess characteristics of "foreign currency digital assets," making it difficult to classify them as DFA, and proving ownership on public chains is challenging. Some legal experts believe that if stablecoins are not recognized as DFA, it could actually benefit ordinary traders in everyday transactions or in evading sanctions, but the lack of legal protection also increases the risk of asset freezing by the issuer. The final ruling in this case is expected to be announced in a few weeks in a non-public manner and is seen as an important precedent for the judicial recognition of stablecoins in Russia.

The Canadian Court of Appeal ruled that the Ontario Securities Commission's request for document production from Binance was "overly broad" and unconstitutional

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in the case of "Binance Holdings Limited v. Ontario Securities Commission (OSC)" to revoke the OSC's previous large-scale document request against Binance, stating that its "scope is shocking" and violates Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding "protection against unreasonable search and seizure."The court noted that although capital market participants have a lower expectation of privacy in regulated activities, they are still protected by the Charter. The OSC had previously requested Binance to submit "all internal and related party communication records involving Canada for a period of two and a half years," which the court found exceeded reasonable regulatory purposes. The ruling emphasized that regulatory investigations may proceed without evidence of wrongdoing, but must still be limited to "categories of documents reasonably related to the investigation's purpose," or they may be dismissed by the court.Additionally, the court commented on Binance's use of encrypted communication tools like Signal that feature "self-destructing messages," stating that the mere use of such technology is insufficient to infer an intent to "evade regulation," providing important clarification for financial institutions using privacy communication software. This ruling is seen as establishing the boundaries of Canadian securities regulatory authority and reminding companies that they can assert the privacy and due process rights granted by the Charter when faced with cross-border or overly broad investigation requests.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.