The British Columbian Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling in the ‘Copytrack Case’ stemming from a dispute over Ethereum [ETH] tokens mistakenly transferred to an ICO investor and it may have implications for crypto users or exchanges outside of the litigants concerned within the case.
The ruling, that was issued by Justice Ronald A. Skolrood, permitted Singapore-based blockchain startup ‘Copytrack’ to trace down and reclaim around 530 Etherum [ETH] that it had erroneously sent to an investor participating in its ICO offering. At the time, those 530 ETH were valued at around $391,000 USD, although they had since been declined in worth to around $121,000 USD for now but still is a big amount.
According to documents revealed by the court, crypto investor named ‘Brian Wall’ participated within the Copytrack ICO offering, subscribing to buy 530 CPY tokens. At the conclusion of the ICO, Copytrack sent Brain 530 tokens, but, abundant to the company’s chagrin, they sent him Ethereum [ETH] instead of CPY tokens — a token that, at a present worth of just 5 cents.
Brian who at first refused to return the 530 Ethereum [ETH] to Copytrack, later agreed to comply. However, he aforementioned that, before he was sending the funds back to the corporate, a hacker unlawfully accessed his Ethereum [ETH] digital wallet and was able to steal the funds. Further even complicating this legal matter, Brian died before the case could be resolved.The case raised many legal queries, including that whether or not the Ether tokens ought to be classified as goods or some thing else, Justice Skolrood however maintained that the crux of the matter is that the tokens belong to Copytrack — uncensorable transactions or not.
Adding further, he said:
“Further, no matter the characterization of the Ether Tokens, it’s undisputed that they were the property of Copytrack, they were sent to Brian by mistake, they weren’t returned when they were demand and Brian has no proprietary claim to them. Whereas the proof of what went on to the Ether Tokens since is somewhat murky, this doesn’t take away from the point that they ought to truly be returned to Copytrack.”
Consequently, Justice Skolrood issued the subsequent ruling stating:
“An order that Copytrack be entitled to trace and recover the 529.8273791 Ether Tokens received by Brian from Copytrack on 15th Feb. 2018 in whatsoever hands those Ether Tokens might presently be held.”
However, the ruling doesn’t just state that Copytrack is that the rightful owner of the misplaced Ethereum and that the current holder — whether Brian or a hacker — might pay the corporate back the 530 ETH. It’d appear to imply that Copytrack is entitled to those specific tokens, notwithstanding who is holding them or whether or not they receive them through legitimate for illegitimate means. This might raise another thorny problems, notably if those funds are sent to a cryptocurrency exchange and unwittingly distributed to different trader’s external digital wallets.
For complete document please refer here.