Chinese Central Bank Official Emphasizes Need for Digital Yuan Retail Payments

Dispute Embroils Bitget in Legal Battle With Crypto InfluencerBitget, the crypto exchange registered in Seychelles, finds itself entangled in a legal dispute with prominent crypto influencer Evan Luthra.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashAccount freezing allegationsThe conflict stems from Luthra’s allegations of account freezing and loss of funds after a token listing incident in March. Luthra has filed a lawsuit against Bitget, accusing the exchange of withholding $200,000 in Tether (USDT) without adequate explanation, while also freezing his account.The legal drama follows Luthra’s involvement with the Reel Star project, where he served as an advisor for the platform which is aimed at creators. As compensation for his collaboration with the project, Luthra received Reel Token (REELT), the project’s utility token.Bitget alleged market manipulationUpon the listing of REELT tokens, Luthra reportedly sold 1.3 million tokens on Bitget. In response, Bitget claims it faced a manipulative attack orchestrated by a group of traders attempting to profit from market manipulation immediately after the token’s listing. This allegedly caused a significant drop in the token’s price, prompting Bitget’s decision to freeze Luthra’s account.Bitget states that it contacted Luthra seeking an explanation for the suspicious trading behavior. Luthra acknowledged the token sale but failed to provide satisfactory reasons for his actions, according to Bitget’s version of events. The exchange maintains that user protection is its foremost priority and that it takes swift action against illegal or fraudulent behaviors.$16 million damages claimLuthra refutes the allegations, asserting his innocence and citing alleged approval from Reel Star’s Co-Founder Navdeep Sharma for his token sale plans. He seeks a substantial $16 million in damages, in addition to the frozen funds. Luthra claims that Bitget unjustly deprived him of his tokens, asserting his status as a fully KYCed user entitled to access his holdings.In the aftermath of the incident, Bitget conducted an investigation and offered a compensation plan for affected clients. Gracy Chen, Bitget’s Managing Director, emphasized the exchange’s commitment to user protection and its actions against illicit activities on its platform. Addressing the matter on Twitter, Chen didn’t hold back in her commentary on Luthra, stating that he “has a history of fraudulent activities,” which she says were exposed by crypto journalist CoffeeZilla.The legal dispute has ignited debates within the crypto community. Supporters of Luthra contend that his case underscores broader issues faced by users of centralized exchanges, shedding light on the need for improved user rights and protection. On the other hand, some argue that Bitget acted appropriately to safeguard its users and the market integrity.CZ brought into the disputeThe legal battle has attracted attention from influential figures in the crypto industry. Against a backdrop of a very public airing of the dispute on Twitter, in a recent tweet Luthra invited Changpeng Zhao (CZ), the CEO of Binance, to respond to Luthra’s claim that Bitget spreads rumors about other exchanges. CZ was having none of it, writing: “You should talk to them, right? We are not a regulator for other exchanges.”The case highlights the intricate challenges surrounding market manipulation and token listings within the crypto space. As it unfolds, the outcome could potentially set a precedent for similar situations involving token listings, market manipulation, and user protection.

In a global effort to bolster regulatory control over the cryptocurrency sector, Asian nations feature prominently among 17 jurisdictions globally, who have implemented tighter cryptocurrency regulations in 2023. That’s the view expressed by blockchain analytics firm TRM Labs in a report published on Monday.Photo by CARTER SAUNDERS on Unsplash2023 notable for regulatory tighteningThe increased scrutiny comes on the heels of several crypto meltdowns in 2022, including the collapse of major platforms like Terraform Labs, Celsius, BlockFi and FTX, resulting in a market rout that wiped out trillions of dollars in value. The subsequent year witnessed an extraordinary surge in regulatory measures globally, with governments prioritizing consumer protection in the volatile crypto space. TRM Labs' report indicates that the jurisdictions strengthening consumer protection measures accounted for 80% of the 21 studied, representing 70% of global exposure to cryptocurrencies. As the crypto ecosystem grappled with the aftermath of the FTX collapse at the beginning of 2023, regulatory actions surged, shaping a transformative year for the industry. The TRM Labs report emphasizes that nearly half of the jurisdictions tightening crypto regulations in 2023 prioritized increasing consumer protection measures. Additionally, international organizations, including the G20, Financial Action Task Force, Financial Stability Board, International Monetary Fund and the International Organization of Securities Commissions, played a role in shaping global frameworks and policy recommendations for cryptocurrency regulation. While prominent regulatory moves included the European Union's implementation of the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA) in June, Asian countries were particularly active in rolling out regulatory controls and measures relative to digital asset markets.  Stronger measures in SingaporeSingapore, recognized as an early adopter of crypto regulation, took significant steps in November to curb retail speculation in cryptocurrencies. The city-state’s central bank and financial regulator, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), brought in these restrictions following a year-long public consultation process, together with a review of cryptocurrency platforms. The country set itself apart from other jurisdictions by becoming one of the first to finalize rules governing stablecoins. That regulatory action included the establishment of a comprehensive framework relative to stablecoin operations. South Korea and Australia increased scrutiny of the cryptocurrency sector, contributing to the global trend of regulatory tightening. Hong Kong licensingHong Kong introduced a new licensing regime for centralized crypto exchanges, aligning with its goal to become a global hub for virtual asset businesses. Following its major initiative in October 2022 to support the virtual asset sector, it has since implemented a mandatory licensing regime for centralized crypto exchanges, allowing them to accept retail investors. Eleven companies, including OKX, one of the largest exchanges by trading volume, have submitted applications for the license in the city. In December, Hong Kong followed Singapore’s lead, by proposing stringent rules for stablecoin issuers, prohibiting unlicensed companies from selling stablecoins to the city's retail investors through regulated channels or actively marketing their tokens within the city. These rules are considered challenging for stablecoin issuers and may potentially deter major stablecoin operators like Tether and USDC from entering the city, according to experts. As Hong Kong solidifies its regulatory stance, it positions itself alongside other major players, contributing to the global evolution of cryptocurrency oversight.

Singapore High Court Recognizes Cryptocurrency as Personal PropertyIn a significant ruling on July 25, Judge Philip Jeyaretnam of the High Court of Singapore declared that cryptocurrency is capable of being held in trust and should be recognized as property.The judge’s decision came in response to a case brought by Dubai-headquartered crypto exchange Bybit against its former employee, Ho Kai Xin, who was accused of transferring approximately 4.2 million Tether (USDT) from the crypto exchange to her private accounts without authorization.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashNo fundamental differenceIn his ruling, Judge Jeyaretnam emphasized that there is no fundamental difference between cryptocurrencies, fiat money, or even physical objects like shells when it comes to their status as property. He argued that as long as these objects hold value and are based on mutual faith, they can be considered property. The judge’s verdict is seen as a crucial step in establishing the legal status of digital assets within the Singaporean jurisdiction.Addressing the argument that cryptocurrencies lack physical presence and therefore cannot be considered property, Judge Jeyaretnam drew an analogy, stating: “We identify what is going on as a particular digital token, somewhat like how we give a name to a river even though the water contained within its banks is constantly changing.” By equating cryptocurrencies to named entities, the judge made it clear that physical tangibility is not a prerequisite for something to be classified as property.Cryptocurrencies have valueFurthermore, the ruling challenges the perception that cryptocurrencies have no “real” value. Judge Jeyaretnam firmly refuted this notion, highlighting that the value of any asset, whether physical or digital, is ultimately determined by collective human belief and judgment.One critical classification made by the judge is grouping cryptocurrencies under the category of “things in action” within British common law. This categorization means that cryptocurrencies are considered a form of property, over which personal rights can be claimed and enforced through legal actions, rather than requiring physical possession.The judge’s decision also referenced the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS) consultation paper, which proposes implementing segregation and custody requirements for digital payment tokens. By taking cues from the MAS’s stance on digital assets, the court emphasized the legality of holding cryptocurrencies on trust, as long as practical methods for identification and segregation are in place.Cues taken from existing lawSingapore’s legal framework for property also played a crucial role in the ruling. Judge Jeyaretnam pointed to Order 22 of Singapore’s Rules of Court 2021, which defines “movable property” to include various assets, such as cash, debts, bonds, shares, and cryptocurrency or other digital currency. This inclusion reinforces the recognition of cryptocurrencies as a valid form of property within Singaporean law.In April of this year, a Hong Kong court reached a similar conclusion, recognizing cryptocurrency as property. In the High Court of Justice in London the following month, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) were recognized as “private property.”Overall, Judge Jeyaretnam’s ruling represents a significant milestone in the legal recognition of cryptocurrencies in Singapore. By acknowledging cryptocurrencies as property, the court provides greater clarity and certainty for crypto users and investors while affirming the importance of embracing digital assets within the nation’s legal framework.