Report: Judge in MTI Liquidation Case Issues Order Designating Bitcoin an Intangible Asset

Report: Judge in MTI Liquidation Case Issues Order Designating Bitcoin an Intangible Asset

A judge in the collapsed online bitcoin trading platform Mirror Trading International’s liquidation case has issued a provisional liquidation order that outlines the criteria to be used when reimbursing investors. The order also reportedly directs the liquidators to regard bitcoin “as [an] intangible asset that constitute[s] property.” Claims for Reimbursement Must Be Submitted in Local Currency

A South African High Court judge recently granted an order outlining the criteria that liquidators of Mirror Trading International (MTI) — the collapsed bitcoin Ponzi scheme — should use when distributing recovered funds to the scheme’s investors. In addition, the judge, Justice MJ Dolamo, said MTI investors should submit claims denominated in the local currency — the rand.

According to a Mybroadband report, the judge’s provisional order requires liquidators to designate bitcoin as an “intangible asset” that constitutes property. The report also said the order proffers two scenarios that the judge looked at when he issued it. Under the first scenario, Justice Dolamo assumes MTI was an illegal scheme, therefore all agreements between members/investors and the defunct bitcoin trading platform were thus void.

Using a complex compensation method that divides MTI investors into three different categories, the judge directed liquidators to accept claims from investors with zero returns. The judge’s order also states that investors whose withdrawals are less than their initial investment need to deduct such drawings so that the value of their claims is determined.

Concerning investors in the category named Class 3, the judge’s order reportedly said: The liquidators may pursue the Class 3 Investors in respect of all transfers made to these investors by the company, including in respect of the profit(s)… when and where the circumstances so permit.

When the funds are recovered, investors in this class will also be allowed to prove their claims arising from the initial investment in MTI “but not in respect of profit.”

No Claims for Individuals That Defrauded MTI

Meanwhile, under the second scenario in which MTI investors become creditors, Justice Dolamo said liquidators should go after the Class 2 investors “in respect of in the returns.” For Class 3 investors, liquidators should go after both the initial investments and the profits.

Following the collapse of MTI in late 2020, court-appointed liquidators have been attempting to recover investor funds from the bitcoin Ponzi scheme’s masterminds. In turn, some investors opposed to MTI’s liquidation have mounted a legal challenge.

However, in his message to individuals accused of defrauding MTI, the judge ruled:

“They will not have any claims against the Company emanating from such conduct and the liquidators are vested with a cause of action against these individuals… to reclaim dispositions to these individuals by the by Company, when and where the circumstances so permit.”

According to the report, interested parties who object to having the provisional order declared final will have an opportunity to give their reasons on October 31.

Register your email here to get a weekly update on African news sent to your inbox:

Tags in this story liquidators, MTI, Ponzi, reimbursement, South Africa

What are your thoughts on this story? Let us know what you think in the comments section below. Terence Zimwara

Terence Zimwara is a Zimbabwe award-winning journalist, author and writer. He has written extensively about the economic troubles of some African countries as well as how digital currencies can provide Africans with an escape route. India"s Central Bank RBI Starts Digital Currency Pilot With 4 Banks: Report REGULATION | 1 day ago Report: Saudi Arabia"s Central Bank Hires Virtual Assets and Digital Currency Program Lead REGULATION | 2 days ago

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons Previous articleInvestor Sues Korean Crypto Exchange for Delaying Coin Transfer Before Luna Crash Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Read disclaimerShow comments More Popular NewsIn Case You Missed ItOman to Incorporate Real Estate Tokenization in Virtual Assets Regulatory Framework

Real estate tokenization is set to be incorporated into Oman Capital Markets Authority (OCMA)"s virtual asset regulatory framework. According to an advisor with the authority, the tokenizing of real estate will open investment opportunities for local and foreign investors. Real ... read more.Argentinian Securities Regulator Launches Innovation Hub to Discuss Regulated Crypto Investments Privacy-Centric Monero Plans for July Hard Fork, Plans Include Ring Signature, Bulletproof Upgrade Australia to List Bitcoin ETF After 4 Clearinghouse Participants Commit to Meet Stringent Margin Terms Economist Predicts the Fed"s Response to Inflation Will Push Crypto Higher