By Bitcoin Časopis - pred 1 rokom - Čas čítania: 7 minúty
Now That Bitcoin Is Considered Property In The UK, Reclaiming Ransomed Assets Sent To Exchanges Is Much Easier
Zatiaľ čo 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.
Toto je názorová redakcia od Matthew Green and Brian Sanya Mondoh, contributors for Bitcoin Magazine.
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 Správa o kryptografickej kriminalite 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 oznámila, 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 protokolu Spartan v máji 2021, kde sa útočníkovi podarilo z projektu ukradnúť približne 30 miliónov dolárov.
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.
Tento prístup sa bežne uplatňuje v anglickom súdnom systéme a je na vzostupe v iných jurisdikciách zvykového práva, ktoré sa spoliehajú na precedensy, aby obetiam vrátili späť svoje finančné prostriedky. Nižšie je zhrnutie právnej a praktickej cesty, ako k tomu došlo.
Kedy 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 “Právne vyhlásenie o krypto aktívach a inteligentných zmluvách” 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.
Táto otázka bola nakoniec posúdená na súde v decembri 2019 (pozri: 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.”
V dôsledku toho, 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.
Prečo je to dôležité?
“AA v Persons Unknown” case saw the first proprietary injunction over bitcoin, To znamená, že 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.
Výzvy na zváženie
Napriek narastajúcemu počtu uzdravení stojí za to obrátiť sa na určité prekážky.
Po prvé, ide o komerčné úvahy, napríklad koľko sa stratilo a či stojí za to inštruovať vyšetrovateľov a právnikov. Odborníci nie sú vždy lacní, a ak je stratená suma nominálna, nemusí sa oplatí pokračovať. Po druhé, ktorá jurisdikcia je relevantná? Ak si vezmeme Anglicko ako príklad, ak tam má obeť bydlisko, podvodník bol prepojený, alebo ak k podvodu došlo v Anglicku, potom budú mať zvyčajne právomoc posudzovať tieto prípady anglické súdy. Bez jedného z nich bude možno musieť obeť riešiť svoj prípad na inom, relevantnejšom území.
Ďalej je potrebné zvážiť správu o sledovaní, ktorá ukazuje tok finančných prostriedkov od miesta, kde opustili obeť alebo príslušný účet, až po miesto, kde sa nachádzajú teraz. Zvážte, kam sa finančné prostriedky stratili, či v tomto bode dosiahli výmenu (zvyčajne je k dispozícii živé sledovanie) a ak áno, ktorá výmena. Zo skúseností a ako príklad opäť použijeme Anglicko, burzy chcú byť vnímané ako správne veci, keď dodržiavajú anglické súdne príkazy, pričom riziko ich porušenia a následnej negatívnej tlače je silným faktorom. V tomto ohľade na získanie kľúčových informácií z výmen sú potrebné žiadosti proti týmto výmenám a je dôležité zvážiť, čo ďalej.
Po zmrazení aktív budú ďalšie kroky závisieť od toho, kto kontroluje adresu fondov. Môžu chcieť rýchlu dohodu, nemusia vôbec odpovedať alebo môžu chcieť viesť súdny spor, hoci zvyčajne jednotlivci spojení s trestnou činnosťou nechcú, aby ich podnikanie bolo zvečnené v súdnych dokumentoch.
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.
Obnova v rôznych oblastiach
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.
Dôležité je, že tam, kde sa obete môžu spojiť a vytvoriť skupinu vhodnú na hromadnú žalobu, môže byť k dispozícii financovanie súdnych sporov a spoločné náklady na proces. Môže to tiež viesť k hromadnému zotaveniu a pomôcť tým, ktorí stratili len málo.
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 “Pravidlá digitálneho riešenia sporov“, ktorej cieľom je uľahčiť rýchle a nákladovo efektívne riešenie obchodných sporov digitálnych aktív a blockchainu. Stručne povedané, Spojené kráľovstvo berie spory týkajúce sa blockchainu vážne a inherentná flexibilita jurisdikcií podľa zvykového práva sa naďalej zameriava na pomoc obetiam a vymáhanie neprávom získaných ziskov.
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 Magazine.
Originálny zdroj: Bitcoin časopis