By Bitcoin Dergi - 1 yıl önce - Okuma Süresi: 7 dakika
Şimdi Bitcoin Birleşik Krallık'ta Mülkiyet Olarak Kabul Edilir, Borsalara Gönderilen Fidye Edilen Varlıkların Geri Alınması Çok Daha Kolay
Süre 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.
Bu bir görüş yazısıdır. Matthew Green and Brian Sanya Mondoh, contributors for Bitcoin Dergi.
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 Kripto Suç Raporu). 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 açıkladı 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 Spartan Protokolü hackleme Mayıs 2021'de saldırgan projeden yaklaşık 30 milyon dolar çalmayı başardı.
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.
Bu yaklaşım İngiliz mahkeme sisteminde rutin olarak uygulanıyor ve mağdurları fonlarıyla eşleştirmek için emsallere dayanan diğer genel hukuk sistemlerinde de yükselişe geçiyor. Aşağıda bunun nasıl gerçekleştiğine ilişkin yasal ve pratik yolculuğun bir özeti bulunmaktadır.
Ne zaman 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 “Kripto Varlıklar ve Akıllı Sözleşmelere İlişkin Yasal Açıklama” 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.
Soru nihayet Aralık 2019'da mahkemede değerlendirildi (bkz: 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.”
Sonuç olarak, 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.
Bu neden önemli?
The “AA v Persons Unknown” case saw the first proprietary injunction over bitcoin. Bu demektir ki 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.
Dikkate Alınması Gereken Zorluklar
Artan sayıda iyileşmeye rağmen bazı engellere yönelmeye değer.
İlk olarak, ne kadar kayıp olduğu ve soruşturmacılara ve avukatlara talimat vermeye değer olup olmadığı gibi ticari hususlar var. Uzmanlar her zaman ucuz değildir ve eğer kaybedilen miktar nominal ise, takip etmeye değmeyebilir. İkincisi, hangi yargı alanı konuyla ilgilidir? İngiltere'yi örnek alırsak, eğer mağdur orada ikamet ediyorsa, dolandırıcının bağlantısı varsa veya dolandırıcılık İngiltere'de gerçekleşmişse, bu durumda genellikle İngiliz mahkemeleri bu davaları değerlendirme yetkisine sahip olacaktır. Bunlardan biri olmadan mağdur, davasını daha alakalı başka bir bölgede sürdürmek zorunda kalabilir.
Daha sonra, fonların mağdurdan veya ilgili hesaptan ayrıldıkları noktadan şu an bulundukları yere kadar akışını gösteren izleme raporunu dikkate almak gerekir. Fonların nereye gittiğini, bu noktada bir borsaya ulaşıp ulaşmadıklarını (canlı izleme genellikle mevcuttur) ve eğer öyleyse hangi borsanın olduğunu düşünün. Deneyimlere göre ve yine İngiltere'yi örnek alırsak, borsalar İngiliz mahkeme kararlarına uyarak doğru şeyi yapıyormuş gibi görünmek istiyor ve bu kararların ihlal edilmesi ve bunun ardından gelen olumsuz basın riski güçlü bir faktör. Bu bakımdan borsalardan önemli bilgilerin alınabilmesi için bu borsalara karşı başvuru yapılması ve hangisinin takip edileceğinin belirlenmesi önemlidir.
Varlıklar dondurulduktan sonraki adımlar fonların adresini kimin kontrol ettiğine bağlıdır. Hızlı bir anlaşma isteyebilirler, hiç yanıt vermeyebilirler veya dava açmak isteyebilirler, ancak genellikle suç faaliyetleriyle bağlantılı kişiler işlerinin mahkeme belgelerinde ölümsüzleştirilmesini istemezler.
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.
Farklı Alanlardaki İyileşmeler
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.
Daha da önemlisi, mağdurların toplu davaya uygun bir grup oluşturmak için bir araya gelebildiği durumlarda, dava finansmanı mevcut olabilir ve sürecin maliyeti paylaşılabilir. Aynı zamanda kitlesel iyileşmeyle de sonuçlanabilir ve çok az kayıp yaşayanlara yardımcı olabilir.
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 “Dijital Uyuşmazlık Çözümü KurallarıTicari anlaşmazlıkların dijital varlıkları ve blok zincirinin hızlı ve uygun maliyetli çözümünü kolaylaştırmayı amaçlıyor. Özetle, Birleşik Krallık, blockchain ile ilgili anlaşmazlıkları ciddiye alıyor ve genel hukuk yargısının doğal esnekliği, mağdurlara yardım etmeye ve haksız kazançların geri alınmasına odaklanmaya devam ediyor.
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 Dergi.
Orjinal kaynak: Bitcoin Wos Magazine