When Chinese individual, referred to as Mr. Chen, was sentenced to nine months in prison for aiding in the procurement of $13,104 worth of USDT, the event drew a wide-ranging response. The transaction was specifically peer-to-peer fiat-to-crypto, however, the Chinese authorities regarded it as money laundering since Mr. Chen’s personal bank information was involved, leading to a severe sentencing. Interestingly, China’s strict stance on crypto is accredited to incidents of data theft and using cryptocurrencies for money-laundering activities. Nevertheless, informants confide that the clampdown on crypto activities is aligned more towards China’s stringent capital control regulations.
Specifically, China’s nationals aren’t allowed to purchase foreign currencies exceeding $50,000 per year without a state permit, the same rules applicable to large-sum Chinese yuan transactions with foreign banks. Cryptocurrency seemed to find a workaround to these rules, leading to formidable capital controls. Meanwhile, a fiscal crisis looms large over China, making top government officials nervous about substantial capital exiting the country.
One would be misled to think that China is entirely dismissive of everything crypto-related. The Chinese government acknowledges the role of the Chinese yuan central bank digital currency in bolstering their economy and prioritizes its adoption. Recent developments include airdropping digital yuan shopping vouchers to its citizens, a move aiming towards revitalizing the economy.
The crypto sector has been struck with quite a significant number of controversies lately. One such incident involves the botched up lawsuit involving Three Arrows Capital (3AC) and their creditors. Premium competency levels are typically required for litigators handling debt claims exceeding billions of dollars, involving multiple jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the court case took an embarrassing turn when it surfaced that Davies, 3AC co-founder, had renounced his US citizenship for Singaporean citizenship, making the subpoenas issued to him void and null.
Subsequently, the liquidators of 3AC discovered the fact one year into the liquidation process, revealing that their jurisdiction had no authority over the defendants. It resulted in a blow to the liquidators who reportedly shelled out millions in legal fees, with estimates
Source: Cointelegraph
