By Bitcoin Majalah - 1 tahun lalu - Waktu Membaca: 7 menit
Sekarang Itu Bitcoin Dianggap sebagai Properti Di Inggris, Mendapatkan Kembali Aset Tebusan yang Dikirim ke Bursa Jauh Lebih Mudah
Sementara bitcoin itself is difficult to confiscate or censor, U.K. courts have labeled bitcoin as property which aids in recovery when scammers try to cash out.
Ini adalah editorial opini oleh Matthew Green and Brian Sanya Mondoh, contributors for Bitcoin Majalah.
With all the available cryptocurrencies, including anonymity-designed bytecoin, monero and zcash, ransomware attackers continue to demand bitcoin and some reports show darknet markets are fuelled by bitcoin transactions (see pages 54 and 109 of the Chainalysis 2022 Laporan Kejahatan Crypto). Seemingly, bitcoin remains one of the most valuable assets for criminals utilizing blockchain technology given its relative stability, price and relevance.
Similarly, in many cases, where other cryptocurrencies have been stolen, obfuscated or paid as part of a scam, funds are transferred into bitcoin and then extracted as fiat. In August 2021, Liquid exchange mengumumkan that 67 different ERC-20 tokens, along with large quantities of ether and bitcoin, had been moved by a party working on behalf of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The attacker swapped numerous tokens including ERC-20 tokens to ether and then bitcoin before cashing out. As a result, approximately $91.35M was laundered. Similar transfers were made in the Retas Protokol Spartan pada Mei 2021 di mana penyerang mampu mencuri sekitar $30 juta dari proyek tersebut.
While large-scale attacks worth hundreds of millions of dollars are investigated by the government bodies designed to fight criminal activity, similar values of bitcoin are extracted from people and businesses everyday. There are now systems in place to allow private individuals, including corporate entities, to trace their assets (and their proceeds) and use the court system to make them whole.
Pendekatan ini telah dilakukan secara rutin dalam sistem pengadilan Inggris dan sedang meningkat di yurisdiksi hukum umum lainnya, yang mengandalkan preseden untuk mencocokkan korban kembali dengan dana mereka. Di bawah ini adalah ringkasan perjalanan hukum dan praktis tentang bagaimana hal ini terjadi.
Ketika Bitcoin Became Property
In England, prior to December 2019, the question of whether cryptocurrencies were property under law was still undetermined. Common law dictates that property is either something capable of being possessed or enforced by an action (like a debt), and the law had difficulty categorizing bitcoin in this way. A “Pernyataan Hukum Tentang Aset Crypto Dan Kontrak Cerdas” prepared by the U.K. Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) only a month before noted “cryptoassets have all of the indicia of property,” the first sign of bitcoin’s recognition as property.
Pertanyaan itu akhirnya dipertimbangkan di pengadilan pada Desember 2019 (lihat: AA v Persons Unknown & Ors, Re Bitcoin). A Canadian hospital fell victim to a malware attack, a ransom was demanded in bitcoin and paid its London insurer. Payment of the ransom led to the recovery of the hospital’s data and access to its systems. However, the insurer sought to trace and recover that ransom given the flow of transactions could be seen on the blockchain. The insurer then instructed a blockchain analysis firm to assist with the tracing of the ransom’s proceeds, which ended up at Bitfinex, an exchange listed in the British Virgin Islands.
Knowing this the insurer then applied to the High Court in England for interim relief to freeze the funds, to freeze the worldwide assets of the individuals who controlled the depositing address at Bitfinex and for disclosure orders. It is worth nothing that the identity of the individual who controlled the relevant address was not known, so more information was needed before the insurer could continue.
In order to obtain these reliefs, the court had to determine whether bitcoin was property, and the judge noted on the judgment that, “I am satisfied for the purpose of granting an interim injunction in the form of an interim proprietary injunction that cryptocurrencies are a form of property capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction.”
Akibatnya, bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general could be treated as “real property” like any other asset, and (theoretically) be frozen, transferred and dealt with like other property such as a car, a house or fiat money.
Mengapa ini penting?
Grafik “AA v Persons Unknown” case saw the first proprietary injunction over bitcoin. Ini berarti bahwa bitcoin paid — or its traceable proceeds, in this instance those found at Bitfinex — were frozen and subject to the determination of the English High Courts. The insurer now had its bitcoin ring-fenced. The insurer’s application therefore resulted in the freezing of those funds, the identity, including know-your-customer documents held by Bitfinex of the person who controlled the depositing address, and a worldwide freezing injunction over their assets.
Now there was a precedent to trace, freeze and recover bitcoin, available to private individuals who could use the courts to exercise their rights as a victim of fraud. Importantly, the aim is to trace and chase the funds, not necessarily the party that committed the fraud in the first place, although the depositing address holder and the initial criminals are usually linked, proven by blockchain analysis, open-source intelligence or law enforcement. It is always worth informing the authorities of any crime that has been committed in any event.
There are now a swathe of cases in England, the U.S. and Singapore where bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have been frozen to assist recovery, including enforcement of third-party debt orders, which compel an exchange to transfer funds from an address to the victim.
Tantangan Untuk Dipertimbangkan
Meskipun peningkatan jumlah pemulihan, ada baiknya beralih ke hambatan tertentu.
Pertama, ada pertimbangan komersial, seperti berapa banyak yang hilang dan apakah layak untuk diinstruksikan kepada penyelidik dan pengacara. Ahli tidak selalu murah dan jika jumlah yang hilang adalah nominal, mungkin tidak layak untuk dikejar. Kedua, yurisdiksi mana yang relevan? Mengambil contoh Inggris, jika korban berdomisili di sana, penipu telah dikaitkan atau jika penipuan terjadi di Inggris, maka biasanya pengadilan Inggris akan memiliki yurisdiksi untuk mempertimbangkan kasus-kasus ini. Tanpa salah satu dari ini, korban mungkin harus melanjutkan kasus mereka di wilayah lain yang lebih relevan.
Selanjutnya adalah mempertimbangkan tracing report, yang menunjukkan aliran dana, dari titik mereka meninggalkan korban atau rekening yang relevan, ke tempat mereka sekarang. Pertimbangkan ke mana dana itu pergi, apakah mereka mencapai pertukaran pada saat ini (tracing langsung biasanya tersedia) dan jika demikian, pertukaran mana. Dari pengalaman, dan menggunakan Inggris lagi sebagai contoh, pertukaran ingin dilihat sebagai melakukan hal yang benar dengan mematuhi perintah pengadilan Inggris, dan risiko melanggarnya dan pers negatif berikutnya merupakan faktor kuat. Sehubungan dengan itu, untuk mendapatkan informasi kunci dari bursa, aplikasi terhadap bursa tersebut diperlukan dan mempertimbangkan mana yang akan dikejar adalah penting.
Setelah aset dibekukan, langkah selanjutnya bergantung pada siapa yang mengontrol alamat dana. Mereka mungkin menginginkan kesepakatan cepat, mungkin tidak menanggapi sama sekali atau mungkin ingin mengajukan perkara, meskipun biasanya individu yang terkait dengan kegiatan kriminal tidak ingin bisnis mereka diabadikan dalam dokumen pengadilan.
In the event the court agrees that the assets are the victims’ and orders that they should be transferred, victims need to consider enforcement, i.e., how they get their funds back. Third-party debt orders compel exchanges to transfer assets, but where this is not available, other tactics come into play and vary depending on the circumstances. It may be individuals who have been identified as further address holders, purported officers of the fraudster company or otherwise, and insolvency proceedings may be brought against them, especially where conspiracy and joint and several liability are available. Settlement however, on the basis that they have responded, is always preferable to all parties involved.
Pemulihan di Berbagai Bidang
While stories of decentralized exchange hacks of hundreds of millions of dollars litter headlines, it must be remembered that individuals who fall victim to romance scams, insurers paying ransoms, scam victims generally and insolvency proceedings involving digital funds, there are ways to investigate and recover bitcoin and other blockchain-based assets.
Yang penting, di mana korban dapat bergabung bersama untuk membuat grup yang cocok untuk gugatan class action, dana litigasi mungkin tersedia dan biaya proses ditanggung bersama. Ini juga dapat mengakibatkan pemulihan massal, membantu mereka yang hanya kehilangan sedikit.
Separately, insurers, who continue to pay ransoms in bitcoin on behalf of their clients, may be able to recover those ransoms and break the cycle of payment, which fuels the continuation of the ransomware industry. Insurers can become the solution, by making good on their contract with their client and depriving the criminals of their ransom.
There are endless applications for recovery, including bitcoin where appropriate, and as common law precedents continue to mount, best practice measures will continue to develop. The U.K. continues to recognise the value of swift and effective asset recovery remedies, and on April 22, 2021, the UKJT published the “Aturan Penyelesaian Sengketa Digital,” yang berupaya memfasilitasi penyelesaian sengketa komersial aset digital dan blockchain yang cepat dan hemat biaya. Singkatnya, Inggris menangani perselisihan yang melibatkan blockchain dengan serius dan fleksibilitas yang melekat dari yurisdiksi hukum umum terus berfokus pada membantu korban dan memulihkan keuntungan yang tidak sah.
This is a guest post by Matthew Green and Brian Sanya Mondoh. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Majalah.
Sumber asli: Bitcoin majalah