By Bitcoin Revista - 1 ano atrás - Tempo de leitura: 7 minutos
Agora isso Bitcoin é considerado propriedade no Reino Unido, recuperar ativos resgatados enviados para bolsas é muito mais fácil
Enquanto 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.
Este é um editorial de opinião de Matthew Green and Brian Sanya Mondoh, contributors for Bitcoin Revista.
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 Relatório de crimes de criptografia Chainalysis 2022). 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 anunciou 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 $91.35M was laundered. Similar transfers were made in the Hack do protocolo espartano em maio de 2021, onde o invasor conseguiu roubar aproximadamente US$ 30 milhões do projeto.
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.
Essa abordagem tem sido praticada rotineiramente no sistema judiciário inglês e está em ascensão em outras jurisdições de direito consuetudinário, que dependem de precedentes para devolver às vítimas seus fundos. Abaixo está um resumo da jornada legal e prática de como isso aconteceu.
Quando 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 “Declaração legal sobre ativos criptográficos e contratos inteligentes” 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.
A questão foi finalmente considerada em tribunal em dezembro de 2019 (ver: 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.”
Como resultado, 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.
Por que isso é importante?
A “AA v Persons Unknown” case saw the first proprietary injunction over bitcoin. Isso significa que o 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.
Desafios a considerar
Apesar de um número crescente de recuperações, vale a pena recorrer a alguns obstáculos.
Primeiro, há considerações comerciais, como quanto foi perdido e se vale a pena instruir investigadores e advogados. Os especialistas nem sempre são baratos e, se a soma perdida for nominal, pode não valer a pena perseguir. Em segundo lugar, qual jurisdição é relevante? Tomando a Inglaterra como exemplo, se a vítima estiver domiciliada lá, o fraudador tiver sido vinculado ou se a fraude ocorrer na Inglaterra, geralmente os tribunais ingleses terão jurisdição para considerar esses casos. Sem um deles, a vítima pode ter que prosseguir com seu caso em outro território mais relevante.
Em seguida, deve-se considerar o relatório de rastreamento, que mostra o fluxo de fundos, desde o ponto em que deixaram a vítima ou conta relevante, até onde estão agora. Considere para onde os fundos foram, se eles chegaram a uma exchange neste momento (o rastreamento ao vivo geralmente está disponível) e, em caso afirmativo, qual exchange. Por experiência, e usando a Inglaterra novamente como exemplo, as exchanges querem ser vistas como fazendo a coisa certa ao cumprir as ordens judiciais inglesas, e o risco de violá-las e a subsequente imprensa negativa é um fator forte. A esse respeito, para obter as principais informações das bolsas, são necessários pedidos contra essas bolsas e é importante considerar quais buscar.
Uma vez que os ativos tenham sido congelados, os próximos passos dependem de quem controla o endereço dos fundos. Eles podem querer um acordo rápido, podem não responder ou podem querer litigar, embora geralmente indivíduos ligados a atividades criminosas não queiram que seus negócios sejam imortalizados em documentos judiciais.
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.
Recuperações em diferentes campos
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.
É importante ressaltar que, onde as vítimas podem se unir para criar um grupo adequado para uma ação coletiva, o financiamento do litígio pode estar disponível e o custo do processo compartilhado. Também pode resultar em recuperação em massa, auxiliando aqueles que perderam apenas um pouco.
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 “Regras de resolução de disputas digitais”, que busca facilitar a resolução rápida e econômica de disputas comerciais, ativos digitais e blockchain. Em suma, o Reino Unido está levando a sério as disputas envolvendo blockchain e a flexibilidade inerente das jurisdições de direito comum continua a se concentrar em ajudar as vítimas e recuperar ganhos ilícitos.
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 Revista.
Fonte original: Bitcoin Magazine