BTC $79,131.25 -1.01%
ETH $2,487.15 -0.44%
BNB $738.89 -1.36%
XRP $1.40 -1.13%
SOL $103.83 -2.13%
TRX $0.3345 -0.22%
DOGE $0.0897 +0.33%
ADA $0.2195 +0.02%
BCH $260.14 +1.24%
LINK $12.74 +2.72%
HYPE $85.13 -3.22%
AAVE $131.72 -1.32%
SUI $0.8240 +3.25%
XLM $0.1900 +3.18%
ZEC $1,154.58 -6.13%
BTC $79,131.25 -1.01%
ETH $2,487.15 -0.44%
BNB $738.89 -1.36%
XRP $1.40 -1.13%
SOL $103.83 -2.13%
TRX $0.3345 -0.22%
DOGE $0.0897 +0.33%
ADA $0.2195 +0.02%
BCH $260.14 +1.24%
LINK $12.74 +2.72%
HYPE $85.13 -3.22%
AAVE $131.72 -1.32%
SUI $0.8240 +3.25%
XLM $0.1900 +3.18%
ZEC $1,154.58 -6.13%

freeze

All
Article
Flash

first_img The Central Bank of the Philippines plans to freeze the registration of payment operators for 12 months, tightening VASP regulation

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) has released a proposed announcement to suspend the acceptance of new applications for registration of payment system operators (OPS) for 12 months and to implement stricter controls on payment arrangements involving virtual asset service providers (VASP). The BSP stated that this move aims to conduct a comprehensive review of its classification and licensing framework.According to the draft, during the suspension period, the BSP will stop accepting and processing OPS applications. Applications submitted prior to the suspension can continue to be evaluated, but will not be approved or rejected until the suspension ends. Relevant entities are prohibited from conducting business activities that require OPS registration unless they obtain special authorization from the regulatory agency. In addition, BSP-regulated entities providing merchant acquiring services must connect licensed VASPs through direct merchant arrangements, and such relationships will be subject to enhanced due diligence, transaction and settlement limits, and other risk control measures.This requirement applies to virtual asset enterprises licensed, registered, or authorized by the BSP, the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Philippines, or other regulatory agencies, with VASPs being categorized alongside betting, gaming, adult industry, and money service businesses. If the draft is ultimately approved, it will take effect 15 days after publication, and the BSP is currently seeking public comments.

first_img The Singapore International Commercial Court freezes approximately 75 million Singapore dollars in cryptocurrency assets

The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) has ordered the freezing of approximately SGD 75 million worth of Bitcoin and USD Coin, involving a transfer dispute between a global major cryptocurrency exchange operator (the plaintiff and related companies) and a long-term customer. In a ruling made in March 2026 by Singapore High Court Judge Aidan Xu and SICC international judges Anthony Meagher and David Goddard, the court granted the plaintiff a temporary injunction, prohibiting the defendant from disposing of 816,773 USDC and 780 BTC transferred from two dedicated wallets on the platform and the corresponding profits, and required the defendant to disclose the whereabouts of the assets, but did not allow the plaintiff to use that information to apply for similar injunctions in other jurisdictions.The defendant had held 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH in the dedicated wallet. The plaintiff claimed that due to technical reasons, the internal ledger did not record the defendant's transfer operation in March 2020, and the wallet appeared empty. Based on this misunderstanding, the plaintiff transferred 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH to the defendant's other wallet in July 2024. The defendant subsequently exchanged 20 BTC for approximately 816,773 USDC and transferred it along with 780 BTC to a non-plaintiff custodial wallet between July and November 2024. After discovering the ledger error in January 2025, the plaintiff froze the defendant's wallet and recovered the remaining 1,700 BTC and 2,500 BCH.

Analysis: The average time from Tether's freeze proposal to execution exceeds 2 hours, allowing high-risk addresses to transfer funds by taking advantage of the time difference

FlashRescue co-founder @DarcyAri posted on the X platform that recently, during a joint investigation with partners on a case, Tether experienced a transfer of funds from one address during the execution of a proposal to freeze addresses, resulting in a decrease in the frozen amount. Further review by FlashRescue revealed that this is not an isolated incident. As of August 3, 2026, through an analysis of 2,955 Tether freeze events on the Ethereum and Tron networks, it was found that among addresses involved in risks such as entity sanctions, fraudulent activities, money laundering, FATF blacklist jurisdictions, and malicious attacks: 60 addresses cleared their assets and completed front-running transfers before the formal execution of the freeze, with a total net outflow of 20,429,847 USDT, starting transfers an average of 13 minutes and 59 seconds after the freeze proposal was submitted, and completing the main fund transfers within 15 minutes and 15 seconds; additionally, 113 addresses transferred some assets before the freeze was executed, involving approximately 35,524,300 USDT.The average time from the submission of the freeze proposal to the formal execution of the freeze by Tether is 2 hours, 16 minutes, and 15 seconds, indicating a long time window between the public announcement of the freeze proposal and its actual execution. On July 3, a cluster of addresses transferred funds continuously within minutes and then split the transfers to the same address. The above cases suggest that some high-risk addresses may be actively monitoring Tether freeze proposals and utilizing the time difference between the public announcement of the proposal and the actual effectiveness of the freeze to implement front-running transfers. This mechanism leads to the failure of freezing the involved funds and undermines the actual effectiveness of sanctions, anti-money laundering, and law enforcement cooperation measures.

Galaxy Research Director: Coldcard victims had 17 BTC stolen and transferred to an offshore betting platform, which refused to freeze the funds

Galaxy Research Research Director Alex Thorn tweeted that among a Coldcard attack victim holding nearly 30 BTC, 17 BTC were split and converted to ETH via THORChain, and then deposited into the offshore betting platform Duel.com.Upon tracking, this portion of funds corresponds to approximately 229.72 ETH (worth about $445,000). The victim and the research team have emailed all known addresses of Duel.com, providing all transaction and deposit information and requesting to freeze the funds, but the response stated that the victim should have the police contact them, even though the platform's anti-money laundering policy claims it implements KYC and complies with relevant laws.Thorn stated that this response is unacceptable, and most of the Western regions have passed midnight, meaning the police report cannot be advanced until at least Monday; he believes that if the platform refuses to freeze the funds after receiving notification that they originated from an ongoing cyber attack, it constitutes complicity in theft.Since Duel.com's X account has been banned, Thorn turned to @ several individuals associated with the platform, urging them to push the platform to take the correct actions, and stated that if the funds are not frozen, the platform will face significant legal action.

ZachXBT: Indian scam gang suspected of social engineering to steal coins and self-reported to the police to trace and freeze funds

"On-chain detective" ZachXBT published a case analysis stating that in a cryptocurrency asset case involving an Indian scam gang, the relevant individuals reported the case to law enforcement after their assets were frozen, drawing attention. The incident began when a user sought help, claiming that approximately 5.73 BTC (about $475,000) was frozen on Changelly in March 2025.Subsequent on-chain analysis revealed that these funds could be traced back to multiple social engineering attacks and theft cases related to Bitcoin ATMs targeting U.S. users, with a total amount involved exceeding $1 million and several elderly victims. The investigation showed that the individual provided multiple changing explanations for the source of the funds, including "loan," "boss transfer," and "investment from 2014-2015," and there were significant contradictions in the evidence chain.More concerning is that this user had previously filed a police report in India in December 2025, attempting to recover the frozen funds (case number 3207-P/2025). Subsequent on-chain evidence collection and email data analysis indicated that they might be a "mule" for transferring funds, with some bank documents inconsistent with their identity information. ZachXBT noted that such cases demonstrate that social engineering attacks and cross-border fund transfers continue to occur and remind users to avoid interacting with funds from suspicious sources to prevent triggering compliance freezes or legal risks.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.