back to article Terraform Labs and crypto bro Do Kwon face $57 million court case in Singapore

Terraform Labs and its fugitive CEO, Do Kwan, face a looming court date in Singapore on Wednesday November 2 as the company confronts a $57 million claim from investors. Also named as defendants in the court case are Terraform Labs' former head of research Nikolaos Alexandros Platias and open source non-profit Luna Foundation …

  1. FILE_ID.DIZ
    Devil

    Just Pull a Carlos Ghosn...

    ... and flee to Lebanon?

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Just Pull a Carlos Ghosn...

      Carlos is a Lebanese citizen. Lebanon has a law on the books that they do not extradite citizens abroad (even for legitimate crimes). They're not the only ones, the Russians and a few other nations have similar rules.

      So unless Kwon somehow gains lebanese citizenship, that's not necessarily the best option. Also considering the state of the economy and the political environment there at the moment, Lebanon is probably not the most attractive destination for a self-proclaimed Crypto-Bro...

      1. FILE_ID.DIZ

        Re: Just Pull a Carlos Ghosn...

        All correct - but there still is no extradition treaty between the two countries.

        And if you're running from the law, beggars can't be choosers. I mean, look at Edward Snowden.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    He's right

    "Last week, he spent time on Twitter to retweet pro crypto monologues about how his industry is revolutionizing the world."

    Well, that is certainly a revolution for him ! Fucked off with the money, to an unknown place, where he can probably get a fake death certificate easily if needed ...

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    crypto nothing but conmen from top to bottom

    "experienced and sophisticated players in the cryptocurrency ecosystem" AKA conmen

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "intended to injure the claimants"

    Unless they have an email trail of the CEO literally writing "how goes our secret criminal conspiracy to deliberately and knowingly injure our customers?", that will never get remotely close to being provable.

    1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

      That depends entire on your standard of evidence. In civil cases in the US, it is often "preponderance of the evidence"--in other words, if the evidence is 51-49, the 51 party wins.

      No idea what the standard is the the colonial-law system of Singapore, but if the complainants can manage to show that he was using known bad technology (ie, the same tech that had previously failed the defendant), then that's some pretty strong evidence.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        It's evidence of negligence, not deliberate intent.

    2. lotus49

      That is certainly not the case in English law. Doing something that had previously failed again to a new group of gullible (and, it has to be said, deserving) investors but misrepresenting it at safe (and most of us probably know how flawed the whole idea of stablecoins is) is at least reckless but more likely knowingly dishonest. It's pretty clear from the facts which this was.

      Establishing these facts would generally be sufficient in an English court. I am not familiar with Singaporean law but I do know that the Singaporean legal system and law is very much based on English law so it's unlikely to be fundamentally different.

  5. Winkypop Silver badge
    Trollface

    Crypto

    The schadenfreude never ends

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like