South Korean Bitcoin Lender Delio Challenges Regulators' Misinterpretation of Law through Lawsuit
Summary:
South Korean Bitcoin lender Delio is preparing to file an administrative lawsuit against regulators for their erroneous interpretation of the law, leading to an investigation and hefty fine. Delio asserts that the allegations of fraud are baseless and warns that seized assets could endanger its operations. The conflict centers around the ambiguous classification of lending companies using virtual assets as collateral. Delio argues that the imposed sanctions amount to a misinterpretation of the law and pose risks to the domestic virtual asset industry.
South Korean Bitcoin lender Delio is reportedly gearing up for an administrative lawsuit against regulators due to their incorrect interpretation of the law, which led to an investigation and a substantial fine for the crypto lending firm. Delio has refuted the allegations of fraud and embezzlement made by the Financial Service Committee (FSC), stating that the accusations are unfounded. The company argued that the regulator unreasonably applied the law without clear regulations for virtual asset deposit and management products. Delio also cautioned that the seizure of its assets by regulators could jeopardize its operations. CEO Jeong Sang-ho criticized the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) sanctions, stating that they leave room for unreasonable legal interpretations and arbitrary enforcement, which could have a detrimental impact on the domestic virtual asset industry. The main point of contention revolves around the interpretation of existing laws, specifically whether a lending company using virtual assets as collateral is considered a virtual asset business operator and if imposing a lock-up constitutes the "storage" of virtual assets under the Special Financial Services Act. Delio argued that it remains unclear whether virtual asset deposits and management products fall under the category of financial products according to the current law. Lawyers representing the company highlighted the absence of provisions for virtual asset-related laws and regulations in relation to the virtual asset management business, asserting that the FIU's interpretation was arbitrary and a misinterpretation of the law.
Published At
9/14/2023 11:46:28 AM
Disclaimer: Algoine does not endorse any content or product on this page. Readers should conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the asset, company, or any information in this article and assume full responsibility for their decisions. This article should not be considered as investment advice. Our news is prepared with AI support.
Do you suspect this content may be misleading, incomplete, or inappropriate in any way, requiring modification or removal?
We appreciate your report.