AssangeDAOの‌価格JUSTICE

In a stunning revelation that adds political intrigue to an already high-profile legal battle, Reuters has uncovered that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) interim chief, Mark Uyeda, cast the sole dissenting vote against suing Elon Musk earlier this year. The closed-door vote, held just days before Republicans took control of the agency in January, approved a lawsuit over Musk’s delayed disclosure of Twitter stock purchases. The 4-1 decision not only highlights deep internal divisions within the SEC but also raises serious questions about political pressure, regulatory integrity, and the future of enforcement under a Musk-friendly administration. In a quiet but consequential January vote, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decided 4-1 to sue Elon Musk over his delayed disclosure of Twitter shares. The vote, revealed exclusively by Reuters , exposed a deep rift within the agency. The lone dissenter? Republican Commissioner Mark Uyeda, now the SEC’s interim chief. His "no" vote came just days before a political shift in Washington saw Republicans take control of the agency. The core issue stems from Musk’s 2022 acquisition of Twitter (now X), when he disclosed his stake 21 days late—far beyond the required 10-day window for holdings exceeding 5%. That delay, the SEC argues, allowed him to scoop up more shares at lower prices, saving him $150 million and triggering market movements. The agency sued Musk on January 14, just a week after the commissioners' internal vote. Uyeda, a Republican appointee and close observer of political implications, reportedly questioned the motives behind the lawsuit. Before the vote, he asked SEC enforcement staff to sign pledges that the case was free from political influence—an unusual move rejected by the staff. His opposition was not necessarily about Musk’s actions, but about the optics and timing of the enforcement, which came just before a change in administration. The timing has raised eyebrows. Musk is a known ally of President Donald Trump, and the vote occurred just before Republican leadership took over the SEC. Trump has since issued an executive order accusing the SEC of partisan targeting under Biden and demanded a review of politically driven investigations. Though the SEC declined to comment, the lawsuit’s proximity to the power shift casts doubt on the agency’s neutrality in the eyes of critics. The commission reportedly demanded Musk give up the $150 million in alleged gains and pay an additional penalty. While Uyeda voted no, fellow Republican Hester Peirce sided with the three Democratic commissioners, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. The decision shows an unusual split within Republican ranks and underscores the internal friction over how to deal with the billionaire entrepreneur. Intent was key. SEC investigators explored whether Musk knowingly delayed the filing—a charge that could carry more severe consequences. Musk, however, claimed he misunderstood the rule and eventually complied. The SEC dropped the intent angle but still pursued civil penalties. Musk had agreed to be deposed twice but resisted further interviews, delaying the case until after the 2024 election. Legal experts question the SEC’s sluggish pace. A late filing case is typically straightforward. "Bringing it at the last minute—it loses credibility," said Howard Fischer, a former SEC lawyer. Others argue that not filing at all would have looked like selective enforcement, undermining the agency’s role in upholding fair markets. Musk has until April 4 to respond to the court summons. With Uyeda now leading the SEC and Trump ordering a review of the agency’s actions, the Musk case could become a lightning rod in the wider war over regulatory power and political influence. Musk’s long-standing feud with the SEC—dating back to his 2018 Tesla tweet saga—adds more fuel to the fire. The internal divide within the SEC, revealed in this exclusive report, paints a picture of an agency caught between law and politics. Whether the case against Musk is about justice or timing remains an open question—one that could reshape the future of securities enforcement in a deeply divided America.

In South Korea, the number of domestic investors holding digital currencies such as Bitcoin has soared by more than 50% in the past year. The figure now stands at more than 9.6 million. Interestingly, one in four of these investors is over 50 years old. Furthermore, data received by Democratic Party lawmaker Ahn Do-jae from five domestic crypto exchanges—namely Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax—shows that by the end of last year, there were more than 9.6 million active and tradable accounts. The previous year, the number was only around 6.3 million. This means that there are more than 3 million additional people trying their luck in the crypto world in just a year. The total amount of crypto assets they hold is truly impressive. Its value reaches more than 105 trillion won (about $77.78 billion). For comparison, that’s equivalent to buying more than 150,000 small apartments in Seoul . Not a number to be taken lightly, especially considering that most of the owners are not from institutions but retail investors. On the other hand, the age group that was previously considered far from technology is starting to catch up. Investors in their 50s are recorded at around 1.75 million people, an increase of more than half from the previous year. Meanwhile, those who have reached the age of 60, the number jumped from 371,800 to 636,700 people. It is possible that some of them follow their children or grandchildren, but in the end they actually make more money. What makes you shake your head is that many of these senior investors also fall into the “big player” category. Of the approximately 9,100 accounts with asset ownership of more than 1 billion won, almost half are owned by people over the age of 50. On average, these mature investors hold crypto assets worth 2.15 billion won per person. It is no wonder that more and more young people are starting to ask their fathers or even grandfathers to teach them how to trade. However, amid this rapid growth, the South Korean government is not sitting idly by. CNF reports that the country’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) has begun cracking down on foreign crypto exchanges that are not yet officially registered. A few of the names under criticism are already familiar among the worldwide crypto community. Apart from love messages, the FIU has started restricting access to its websites running Korean domains. Roughly speaking, their cords have been taken out rather than they were only chastised. Local regulators are also increasingly vigilant about the potential misuse of crypto platforms for illegal purposes. Starting January 19, 2025, they will monitor transactions suspected of being related to illegal foreign exchange trading. It is not just one institution that is moving. Financial authorities, the Ministry of Justice, and the Central Bank of Korea will work together in this supervision. So for those who think they can smuggle money through digital wallets, you should think again. Apart from these tightening measures, South Korea is also preparing to launch a pilot project for a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Still from the CNF report , the Central Bank of Korea will start a CBDC trial in April 2025. The program will involve 100,000 participants and several major banks. Participants will later be able to convert their bank balances into digital tokens and use them to shop at certain merchants. The payment process will also be tested in a real-time system.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on March 21 that $7 million in proceeds from a cryptocurrency investment fraud scheme have been recovered and cleared through civil asset forfeiture. The announcement states: The United States has recovered and cleared title to $7 million of investment fraud proceeds using civil asset forfeiture. The United States will now begin the process of inviting the victims from whom those funds were stolen to submit petitions to have the funds remitted back to them. The announcement came after U.S. District Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. approved a settlement between the U.S. and a foreign bank where the funds had been located. The DOJ’s complaint outlined how scammers relied on social engineering to gain the confidence of victims before presenting fraudulent cryptocurrency investment opportunities. “These websites were set up to mimic legitimate cryptocurrency investment platforms, but funneled victim funds to the perpetrators through over 75 bank accounts in the names of shell companies,” the authorities said. Victims were led to believe their investments were increasing in value, but in reality, the gains were fabricated. The DOJ noted: The sites falsely represented to the victims that their investments were making sizeable gains. However, when victims would attempt to make withdrawals, the perpetrators would coerce the victims to send even more money using tactics such as claiming the victims owed taxes on their purported profits. After laundering the funds through a complex series of domestic and international transactions, the perpetrators ultimately transferred the money overseas. In June 2023, the U.S. Secret Service seized funds from a foreign bank account, prompting the DOJ to file a civil forfeiture complaint. Following a claim by the foreign bank, a settlement was reached, resulting in $7 million being forfeited to the United States. 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。

Russia is considering a plan to direct confiscated cryptocurrency into a special fund, with proceeds from its use allocated to social initiatives. Yevgeny Masharov, a member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, expressed support for the proposal, which is part of a broader effort to define crypto as property under criminal law. Masharov told TASS that seized digital assets should “work for the benefit of the state” rather than remain dormant. The proposed fund would hold confiscated cryptocurrency, allowing it to grow in value over time. Revenue generated from these assets could be directed toward social, environmental, and educational projects. The initiative aligns with a bill submitted by Russia’s Ministry of Justice and the Investigative Committee that seeks to classify cryptocurrency as property and material evidence. Masharov emphasized the importance of removing illicit crypto holdings from circulation while ensuring they serve a constructive purpose. He also expressed willingness to facilitate discussions between law enforcement, tax authorities, and the crypto industry to develop a unified stance on the matter. If enacted, the proposal could create a structured approach for handling digital assets linked to criminal activity while integrating them into Russia’s broader financial system.

A British man who accidentally discarded a hard drive containing bitcoin worth hundreds of millions of dollars has faced another legal setback in his battle to recover it. James Howells, an IT engineer from Newport, Wales, lost access to about 8,000 BTC in 2013 when he mistakenly threw away a hard drive now believed to be buried in a landfill. Despite repeated efforts to retrieve it, his latest appeal to the Royal Court of Appeal has been refused. “Appeal request to the Royal Court of Appeal: refused,” he shared on social media platform X on March 14. Howells added: The Great British Injustice System strikes again… The state always protects the state. Howells has spent years trying to gain permission to search the landfill, arguing that recovering the hard drive could restore his lost fortune, now valued at over $600 million. He has proposed several solutions, including offering Newport City Council a share of the proceeds, fully funding an environmentally compliant excavation, and even offering to buy the landfill to conduct the search himself. However, the council has consistently rejected his requests, citing environmental concerns and the legal ownership of the landfill’s contents. A court document dated March 13, which Howells shared on X, confirms the decision was made by the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Nugee. The ruling states: “Decision: refused.” Lord Justice Nugee explained his reasoning: I do not consider that the proposed appeal has any real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard and permission must therefore be refused. Howells has now vowed to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), writing on X: “Next stop: ECHR.” The ECHR, based in Strasbourg, France, hears cases concerning human rights violations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Despite repeated legal setbacks, Howells remains determined to pursue every available legal avenue in his attempt to recover his lost bitcoin. His decision to escalate the case to an international court signals his continued fight against UK authorities. Whether the ECHR will take up his case remains to be seen. 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。