Ocbc self declaration form3/16/2024 ![]() ![]() “Asic referred information relating to the HyperVerse matter to Victoria Police in 2020, after being advised that VicPol were making inquiries into the conduct, and after determining that it was not a financial product and that the police were best placed to investigate possible fraud offences,” an Asic spokesperson said." "The Australian Securities and Investments Commission made the referral to Victoria police for alleged “possible fraud offences” after concerns were raised with the corporate regulator about a related company, Blockchain Global. □ What makes the inaction particularly shocking is that, unlike in the Singapore case, this was a referral by a regulatory body, not some random disgruntled investor who lost money: "Australia’s corporate watchdog referred information about the alleged US$1.89bn “Ponzi scheme” known as HyperVerse to Victoria police in 2020, only for it to be referred back almost two years later without any action being taken." If you thought the Singapore police letting Do Kwon slip out of the country after a police report was filed against him looked bad for Singapore, The Guardian reports: Yet another instance of law enforcement incompetence in the face of crypto fraud? Third Thing or Sixth Sense? I See Ideational Objects? If you are interested in an advance copy of the chapter, perhaps leave your email as a comment (or message me) over the weekend and I will send along the preprint sometime early next week after I collate all interest. Classification as third things also does not even begin to address other important questions, such as how cryptoassets and many other intangible property may be “seized” in order to satisfy a judgment debt." This then necessitates replicating for cryptoassets the patchwork of claims that exist for things in possession but which is hitherto alien to intangible property, however classified. Fourthly, despite its denial that there can be any rights to cryptoassets, its patchwork of wrongs necessarily creates rights, albeit in reverse and obscured from view. ![]() Any comparison with possession, a rivalrous form of control, is simply inapt. Thus, even if cryptoassets were objects, the extra-legal control over them is simply not rivalrous. If some third things have relative title and some third things don’t, how is the category of third things remotely useful? Thirdly, it mistakes the law of property for being concerned with objects when it is concerned with relationships with objects. In so doing, and especially in conjunction with its amorphous criteria for classification as third things, it fails to take English personal property law forwards in its rationalisation and classification of intangible property. Secondly, its odd notion of relativity of title arguably confuses relativity of title strictly so-called with the idea of competing claims to property. ![]() First, and most importantly, there is no clarity as to when an intangible property is a thing in action and when it is a third thing. "The Law Commission’s proposal is riddled with flaws, particularly in the form it takes in the final report. Unfortunately, the publisher does not allow me to share the paper on SSRN so here's a sneak peak at the conclusion: Just put the finishing touches to a critique of the Law Commission of England and Wales's proposal to introduce a category of third things (tertium quid) to English personal property law for Paul Babie and Mark Giancaspro's Private Law and Digital Assets for Springer Law. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |