Press Releases TheBitTimes.com

Chinese police may have busted Multichain in a money laundering investigation, but many questions remain, including its CEO’s alleged fake ID. On July 14, developers of the $1.5-billion Chinese cross-chain protocol Multichain confirmed users’ worst fears. The protocol’s CEO, identified only as “Zhaojun He,” was arrested by Chinese authorities in Kunming on May 21 after months of repeated denials on official communication channels. Also allegedly arrested was Multichain’s core team, which was operating in Shanghai.  It was never disclosed why Zhaojun had been arrested or what the charges were. However, evidence suggests that Multichain funds may have been seized as part of an anti-money laundering operation in the context of a greater crackdown on crypto by Chinese authorities. In addition, an alleged fake ID used by the CEO to register Multichain’s operations only draws more questions.  Multichain co-founder Alfred Xu assured that the development team was doing “just fine” on May 24...

Lawyer Jeremy Hogan believes the United States Securites and Exchange Commission has failed to legally demonstrate that XRP is a security. Ripple’s XRP (XRP) is not a security because it does not fit the definition of an “investment contract,” the “only” legislative definition that it could “possibly” fit, according to Jeremy Hogan, a partner at the law firm of Hogan & Hogan. In a series of tweets on April 9, Hogan explained that, in his opinion, XRP could only be considered a security under the definition of an "investment contract," as it doesn't fit the other definitions of a security such as stocks or bonds. Hogan argues, however, that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission has not demonstrated an implied or explicit investment contract in its suit against Ripple. The #1 reason why XRP is not a Security (a thread). First, under the legislative definition of a security, XRP can only POSSIBLY fit under the definition of an "investment contract....

It isn’t clear whether a 25-year-old European Union law means you should be allowed to get refunds on your NFTs. Should people who purchase nonfungible tokens (NFT) be entitled to refunds if they decide they don’t like their digital pictures? Some Europeans are beginning to make that case under a 25-year-old law. Unhappy buyers have claimed that their right to a refund is protected by a 1997 European Union law that requires any person or business engaged in “distance selling” — that is, buying and selling a product that is not done in person — to allow customers a 14-day grace period to return the product for a refund. But since digital goods are different, the law makes provision for the 14-day period to be waived if customers are made aware in advance. While the interpretation of the law is going to inevitably play out in the courts, there are several important caveats to take into account, particularly given that the law was written before the ubiquity of digital goods and services...

Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried have started facing professional consequences for their child Sam Bankman-Fried's illegal actions. The domino effect of FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried’s actions came full circle as his reputation began impacting the professional lives of his parents — Stanford Law professors Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried.  SBF’s father, Bankman, had to cancel his winter session course on tax policy, which according to The Standford Daily, was at a time when the family was accused of acquiring an FTX-owned $16.4 million vacation home before the crypto exchange’s collapse. Stanford Law professor Joseph Bankman's tax policy course was canceled. Source: explorecourses.stanford.edu On the other hand, SBF’s mother, Fried, was surprisingly not even listed as an instructor for any of the courses. While this event coincides with FTX’s fallout, where Fried became a focal point of discussion owing to her political ties, she distanced the move from the ongoing investigation...