UAE’s Royal Office Visits Korea to Further Security Token Collaboration with AIITONE

Triple-A Secures Series A Funding to Advance Crypto PaymentsTriple-A, the Singaporean digital currency payments firm founded by Eric Barbier, has announced the successful closure of its $10 million Series A funding round.Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash$10 million raiseIn a statement on its website on Wednesday, the firm outlined that the raise had been led by Peak XV Partners (formerly known as Sequoia India & South East Asia), who had previously invested in the company. In addition, the round received support from Abu Dhabi-based venture firm Shorooq Partners, alongside other undisclosed repeat backers.The company offers white-label solutions for businesses, facilitating the seamless integration of cryptocurrency payments with quick conversion to fiat money in their bank accounts within just one day. Triple-A currently supports various cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Ether, Tether, and USD Coin.According to Barbier, stablecoins are a game-changer in payments, as they enable real-time settlements, in contrast to traditional payment methods like SWIFT transfers, which may take several days to clear. He stated: “With stablecoins, individuals and businesses worldwide, even in emerging countries, can now easily own and use a USD-denominated currency.”Barbier is known for his earlier success in founding the cross-border payments platform Thunes. The idea for Triple-A was born while Barbier was working at Thunes and recognized the potential of cryptocurrencies in resolving chargeback fraud issues.Barbier saw cryptocurrencies as a more efficient payment method for businesses engaged in cross-border transactions. He explained:“Cryptocurrency payments not only shield businesses from chargeback fraud risks but also help to streamline B2B cross-border payments. With instant settlements and no middlemen required, I realized we could solve many pressing issues in the payments industry today.”Expanding operations globallyThis funding round follows Triple-A’s $4 million seed round, bringing the total funds raised to date to $14 million. The new capital injection will be directed towards expanding Triple-A’s operations in key regions, including the Middle East, North America, and South America.Moreover, the company plans to enhance its cryptocurrency solutions and offerings in its crypto payments and payout products. Currently headquartered in Singapore, Triple-A boasts a global presence with offices in Miami, Hong Kong, Paris, and Barcelona, supported by a team of over 70 professionals.Regulatory compliant pathTriple-A is trying to differentiate itself through adherence to regulation. The company holds licenses that permit it to operate globally, including one from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) as a payments institution and a payments institution license from the central bank of France, allowing it to execute payment transactions across all EU member states.The company is registered with the United States Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and is actively looking to expand its regulatory footprint. In line with the regulatory path the business is treading, Triple-A’s target clientele primarily consists of enterprises that value compliance, regulation, and licensing and seek to engage in cryptocurrency payments without the associated risks and complexities.Triple-A has already gained traction, serving more than 20,000 businesses, including prominent names such as iStudio, Farfetch, Charles and Keith, Singapore Red Cross, Razer, and Reap, along with other large enterprises. In July, it partnered with universal payments platform Optty to enable crypto payments. The onboarding process is swift, with Triple-A completing the Know Your Customer (KYC) procedure and onboarding within one to two business days. The integration methods offered include API and no-code integration.

Roger Ver sues Matrixport over frozen crypto fundsRoger Ver, often referred to as “Bitcoin Jesus,” finds himself embroiled in a legal dispute with Jihan Wu, the co-founder and chairman of Matrixport, a Singapore-based digital assets financial services platform.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash$8 million disputeThe crux of the matter is a contentious $8 million that Ver claims Wu withheld from him in connection with the fallout of the unrelated failure of the CoinFLEX crypto platform. This conflict has led to a lawsuit filed by Ver’s counsel in the Seychelles.The legal complaint, which originated last year, revolves around bit.com, a crypto exchange owned by Matrixport, refusing to allow Ver to withdraw his $8 million. Wu, a creditor of CoinFLEX, contends that he incurred financial losses due to the exchange’s restructuring.However, Ver asserts that the insolvency of CoinFLEX, an unrelated entity, should not be tied to the funds owed to him by Matrixport. Off the back of that assertion, Ver confirmed to The Block that in August 2022, he sued Smart Vega Holding Limited, a Seychelles-incorporated subsidiary company of Matrixport, for $8 million.Ver asserts CoinFLEX collapse innocenceRoger Ver maintains that he is not to blame for CoinFLEX’s collapse. He states that the narrative emerged due to breaches of confidentiality regarding the arbitration between CoinFLEX and himself. It emerged last month that creditors of CoinFLEX had taken legal action against its CEO, Mark Lamb, as well as Ver. It’s understood that Ver had benefited from a settlement negotiated with Lamb. Creditors are seeking to recover any benefit realized by Ver as a consequence of this settlement.Ver told Coindesk in an email that he initiated arbitration proceedings against CoinFLEX in June 2022, seeking $200 million in damages. He maintains he was the plaintiff in this case, not CoinFLEX, which later filed a counterclaim for $84 million.Confidentiality is a key aspect of arbitration proceedings, especially in Hong Kong where the arbitration took place. Despite this, it is alleged that Lamb broke this confidentiality, which led to the misrepresentation that CoinFLEX was the plaintiff in the case. Ver firmly believes that CoinFLEX’s insolvency was primarily due to market turmoil in May 2022 and poor risk management on the part of its co-founders.Matrixport standing firmWhile Matrixport does not deny withholding the cryptocurrency from Ver, it argues that Ver should repay his debt to CoinFLEX, which is a creditor of Ver. Once this is done, CoinFLEX will release monies owed to Wu.The dispute also touches on the terms of service. Matrixport maintains that it has the right to withhold funds for penalties related to defaulted margin calls and legal fees and it is committing significant legal resources to defend its position. Ver’s attorney counters this argument, stating that Matrixport’s terms of service do not permit such penalties and that there is no legal justification for withholding the funds.Matrixport claims that the funds are being held because of an investigation into Ver’s “margin trading irregularities.” The company’s Head of Public Relations and Brand, Ross Gan, said that Ver “continues to make unreasonable demands.” Gan added:“We will respect the legal process and the ultimate Court ruling on this case and reserve all our rights to take further legal action in this ongoing dispute with Mr. Ver.”

Korean Supreme Court acquits Dunamu Chairman Song Chi-hyungThe Supreme Court of South Korea, in a significant ruling on Thursday (local time), acquitted Song Chi-hyung, chairman and principal stakeholder of Dunamu, of fraud and forgery charges, according to a report by local news agency Yonhap. This ruling is particularly noteworthy because Dunamu is the operator of the nation’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, Upbit.This decision, led by Justice Oh Kyung-mi, marks the culmination of a legal battle that began with Song’s indictment in Dec. 2018, and it extends to the acquittal of the company’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the head of the Data Value Team, who were jointly indicted.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashBackground of the caseSong Chi-hyung and his colleagues were alleged to have fabricated an account on Upbit between September and November 2017. They had been accused of feigning the deposit of assets valued at KRW 122.1 billion and then employing these fictitious funds to enable transactions among actual members.The prosecution also leveled fraud charges against them, claiming that the fabricated account was utilized to sell 11,550 bitcoins to 26,000 members, thereby generating KRW 149.1 billion.The Seoul Southern District Court, acting as the court of first instance, found them not guilty. The court reasoned that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish that the defendants actually deposited the assets in the account.Issues with the prosecution’s evidence gatheringThe Seoul High Court, serving as the appellate court, identified problems with the evidence provided by the prosecution, determining that part of it lacked credibility due to improper collection methods. Notably, the court observed that the prosecution had directed Dunamu employees to access their Amazon cloud server to download the account’s transaction history. However, since this remote server was not included in the search and seizure warrant, the court highlighted the illegitimacy of the evidence.The appellate court also pointed out another issue with the evidence: documents stored on the CFO’s USB drive. The prosecution did not follow the legitimate search process, which requires them to extract only data related to the allegations. Moreover, the prosecutors did not present a warrant when confiscating the laptop of the Data Value Team’s lead, further undermining the credibility of their evidence.The court further stated that even if the remaining evidence provided by the prosecution was considered viable, it was still insufficient to substantiate the prosecution’s accusations.The prosecution, disagreeing with the decision of the appeals court, had escalated the case to the Supreme Court. However, the highest court in the nation sided with the ruling of the appeals court, effectively upholding the decision made at the appellate level.