The case of the Brian Wall

It’s a usual situation that happens every day in FIAT world whenever someone makes wrong transactions. Particular policies allow you to resolve that kind of issues. However, what happens with the same situation in the non-fiat world?

Now we have a Judicial model that shows us that the same can be in the world of cryptocurrencies.

A short list of chronology:

• Brian Wall, a cryptocurrency trader, participated in the startup’s ICO was mistakenly credited by 530ETH instead of CPY (Copytrack token);
• First Wall refused to return the 530 ETH to Copytrack, they later agreed to comply;
• Before he could send the funds back to the company, a hacker unlawfully accessed his ethereum wallet and stole the funds;
• Further complicating the legal matter, Wall died before resolving of the case;

The ruling, which was issued by Justice Ronald A. Skolrood on Sept. 12, authorized Singapore-based blockchain startup Copytrack to track down and reclaim approximately 530 ETH that it had mistakenly sent to an investor.

The vital part that at the time, those 530 ETH had a valuation of approximately $391,000 (CAD$495,000), though they have since declined in value to about $121,000 — still a hefty sum. Also, the judge said:

“Further, regardless of the characterization of the Ether Tokens, it is undisputed that they were the property of Copytrack, they were sent to Wall in error, they were not returned when demand was made and Wall has no proprietary claim to them. While the evidence of what has happened to the Ether Tokens since is somewhat murky, this does not detract from the point that they should rightfully be returned to Copytrack.”

Non-fiat world live with the same laws as other world!

Read our next opinion tomorrow!

And follow our social profiles to always be up to date with news: