Important Decision from the UK Court About Tether (USDT)!
The UK High Court has ruled that Tether (USDT) is property under UK law.
As uncertainty over the legal status of cryptocurrencies continues, the UK Supreme Court has made a groundbreaking decision regarding Tether (USDT).
This is the first decision following a full trial in English law on the status of cryptocurrencies.
According to Coindesk, the UK High Court ruled that Tether (USDT) is property under British law.
“USDT has property rights under English law,” said Associate Justice Richard Farnhill in his ruling. The judge also added that USDT is traceable and can constitute trust property like any other property.
The lawsuit in question was filed by Fabrizio D’Aloia, who claims he was the victim of a cryptocurrency scam. In the lawsuit, Fabrizio D’Aloia claims that his 2.5 million pounds ($3.3 million) worth of USDT was stolen, laundered through various exchanges and mixers, and sent to a specific wallet on the Thai exchange BitKub.
Despite acknowledging the fraud, the court stated that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the victim's USDT was sent to a specific wallet on the Thai exchange BitKub due to the use of mixers.
*This is not investment advice.
Disclaimer: The content of this article solely reflects the author's opinion and does not represent the platform in any capacity. This article is not intended to serve as a reference for making investment decisions.
You may also like
BREAKING: Exciting Development for XRP and Solana from the US!
Why Donald Trump Isn’t Announcing Expected Cryptocurrency Orders? Industry CEO Makes Relieving Statement
Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire discussed potential cryptocurrency orders from US President-elect Donald Trump in a statement.
BREAKING: Bloomberg Analyst Reveals Estimate for Solana Futures ETF Approval Date – Closer Than Expected
Bloomberg analyst Eric Balchunas shared his prediction about the approval date of Solana futures ETFs in his statement.
New Fiat user exclusive: Enjoy 100% transaction fee rebates in BGB!