In what has been described as a precedent-setting move, a court injunction issued by a Hong Kong court and sent to two cryptocurrency wallets using tokenization technology was successfully executed. The order, which prohibits the sale or transfer of USDT stablecoins worth $2.66 million, was issued in early December 2024.

According to a South China Morning Post (SCMP) report, the plaintiff, Worldwide A-Plus—a marketing consultancy—sought the order after it was tricked into transferring the funds to a fake representation scam. The report adds that experts not only see the execution of the order as precedent-setting but also as boosting Hong Kong’s appeal as a tech hub.

As reportedly shown by public records on Tronscan, a blockchain scanner platform, two wallets were found to contain a token called “2-Jan25-Notice” on January 17. This token, transferred on January 3, included a message indicating that an initial court order remained in effect.

“Please refer to the hyperlink in our previous legal notice dated Dec 9 2024 for a copy of the relevant court order and the plaintiff’s statement of costs, which has now been served on you, by way of Tokenised Legal Notice,” the message in the token states.

Though still fairly new, the concept of tokenized legal notices is gaining traction due to unique advantages they have over traditional means of serving defendants. Some advantages of tokenized notices include streamlining legal processes, greater transparency, and reduced costs for both senders and recipients.

However, as is often the case with new innovations, tokenized legal notices have drawbacks, including technological and security issues that may impede their widespread use. Critics argue that the acceptance of these legal notices by legal professionals and the public could also impact their adoption, even if technological and security concerns are addressed.

Meanwhile, another report quotes experts explaining what this precedent means for parties such as crypto exchanges. Joshua Chu, a cybersecurity consultant, said:

“It will be in violation of criminal law if a transaction follows through, and if centralized exchanges are involved, they would likely be hesitant to engage with these wallets due to their statutory obligations.”

However, Moses Park, counsel for the plaintiff, noted that serving court documents on wallet holders has been challenging, if not impossible, under existing procedural requirements. Still, proponents believe this new approach has made it possible to hold illicit actors accountable.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。