Regarding the matter of Arbitrum/KelpDAO freezing assets and being targeted by creditors in the DPRK judgment. Too long to watch: This is not an ordinary lawyer's letter. The DPRK judgment creditors have initiated the New York judgment enforcement process and obtained court approval for alternative service. The current effect is only to lock the assets first, and the court has not determined who the ETH ultimately belongs to. 2. Arbitrarum/Security Council cannot safely bypass the court at present, and the possibility of transferring ETH to Kelp recovery in the short term is very low. 3. Kelp side's strong argument: If this batch of ETH is traceable proceedings of stolen assets, DPRK/Lazarus as the third usually does not have a good title. The biggest risks of Kelp side are tracing, ownership, standing, and recovery mechanisms, which prove to be a technical activity. So Users should be mentally prepared for a 'protracted war', even if Definited raises an additional 30000 ETH to replace the freeze on Arbitrum, directly compensating users may make this issue even more complex in the future. If there are still users who haven't left, it is recommended to evacuate Uniswap as soon as possible: Sell aArbWETH and directly replace it with WETH, with only 0.05% -0.2% wear and tear. For large amounts, it may need to be replaced slowly, but for small amounts, it can be replaced at any time. Pool: aArbWETH <-> WETH https://app.uniswap.org/explore/pools/arbitrum/0x07f01058a37e2A0BA9e4F4aaF5009A792500f857 ---The following is the main text--- The original document of the court order of the Southern District Court of New York State: https://beige-just-flyingfish-108.mypinata.cloud/ipfs/bafybeie6poclhkkl4pc5hz72od2dm4nhxe56bw5ljx3bqye7isnjorh3se In the eyes of most web3 users, the current situation is like 'DPRK victim lawyers trying to steal money from Kelp/AAVE users'; However, from a legal perspective, the situation is more complex. The current chain that has occurred is roughly: On April 19th, assets related to Kelp/rsETH were attacked, and the attackers were believed to be related to DPRK/Lazarus. Approximately 36167 rsETH was cross chain to Arbitrarum and deposited into AAVE lending ETH and wstETH, ultimately being fully exchanged for 30766 ETH. On April 21st, the Arbitrarum Security Council urgently froze the ETH of the attacker's address. On April 30th, the lawyer for the victim side of the North Korean court initiated the New York judgment execution process and issued * * CPLR § 5222 restraining notice * * to the Arbitrarum DAO, requesting the court to approve alternative service. On May 1st, the S.D.NY court approved alternative service. That is to say, the restraint notice and letters of execution can be sent to the relevant parties of the Arbitration DAO through channels such as the Arbitration Governance Forum, Security Council members, relevant entities, and lawyers. Around May 2nd, relevant notices were posted on the Arbitrarum governance forum. So the current status is that these assets have entered a formal judgment enforcement process. It is not just an ordinary lawyer's letter, nor is it a governance dispute that the DAO community can ignore. Of course, this step does not mean that the court has already ruled that the victim of the DPRK can take the money. The current situation is that the Arbitrarum DAO/Security Council should not transfer, release or dispose of these assets claimed to be related to the DPRK/Lazarus without authorization until further processing by the court. This is crucial for Arbitrarum. If the Security Council or DAO transfers assets directly to the Kelp recovery wallet without lifting or modifying the restraining notice, or without obtaining a court order, the legal risk will be very high. Even if Kelp side is ultimately justified in terms of substantive rights, Arbitrarum may still be held accountable for violating the restraining notice. So the most likely path is to complete the court proceedings and then move the assets: Arbitrarum/Kelp side entered court proceedings, filed defenses, advanced claims, and requested the court to confirm that the DPRK has no enforceable property interest in these assets, or to approve a court serviced recovery plan. There may be several milestones in terms of timing going forward: Firstly, there may be an emergency briefing or hearing in the short term. If Arbitrarum, Kelp, or other affected parties voluntarily appear in court, the court may first address a very practical issue: whether the assets can continue to be frozen, whether they can enter an escape, and whether they can allow some kind of controlled recovery plan. Secondly, if both parties only argue about 'not moving assets for now', this issue may quickly enter the court's view. But if the dispute is over ultimate ownership/priority, that is, who has the right to take away this batch of ETH, the time may be significantly prolonged. Thirdly, CPLR § 5222 typically has an important time dimension for third-party garnishee's restraining notice: for third parties, the restraining effect can generally last until one year after delivery, or the judgment is satisfied/evacuated, whichever is earlier. So if the court hadn't modified or lifted the restraint earlier, theoretically, such a freeze could have been delayed for almost a year. Of course, in practice, if all parties appear in court quickly and the evidence is clear, it may also be resolved earlier. This has a direct impact on Kelp/AAVE users: In the short term, the portion of ETH frozen by Arbitrarum is difficult to use for kelp recovery disposal. The assets are technically frozen and legally locked with a restraining notice. Even if the DAO community supports returns, it still needs to address court procedural issues. In the mid-term, there are many controversial issues that need to be clarified regarding whether users can recover their losses as soon as possible Is the on chain path of Fruzen ETH and Kelp exploit clear enough; Is this batch of ETH original stolen assets, directly processed, or a mixed asset after swap/bridge/conversion; Who is qualified to represent the victim in court and claim their rights; Can the recovery wallet or claims process be accepted by the court; Is the Arbitrarum DAO/Security Council legally a custodian, controller, or simply a governance entity with technical freeze/unfreeze capabilities. Of course, I personally think Kelp side's physical argument is still valid: if these frozen assets can be proven to be traceable proceeds of the stolen assets in Kelp/rsETH exploit, then DPRK/Lazarus is just the third. Under general legal principles, thief does not get good title。 The things stolen by thieves usually do not become legal property that can be used to repay their old debts just because they pass through wallets, bridges, or DEX. This is also the threshold that DPRK judgment creditors need to cross the most: they can only execute DPRK property interests and cannot execute property that originally belonged to third-party victims. But Kelp side's biggest challenge is also here. The court will not just listen to one sentence: 'This is Kelp user's money'. The court will consider tracing, ownership, standing, and recovery mechanisms. If the on chain path is not clean enough, or if it is difficult to prove that the asset is the property/proceeds of a specific victim after multiple conversions, the strategy of DPRK judgment creditors will become stronger. They will say that these assets are now proceedings under the control of the DPRK/Lazarus and can therefore be used to enforce old judgments. (Of course, I think the link is relatively clean, the only complicated thing is that a layer of loan relationship was secured through AAVE collateral.) The above is not a legal opinion, but a procedural analysis based on publicly available materials.