Terraform Labs co-founder Do Kwon’s extradition to the US was annulled by the Appellate Courtroom of Montenegro, in line with a Mar. 5 discover on the Courtroom’s web site.
This growth happens amid bankrupt Terraform Labs’ current authorized wrangle with the US SEC.
Why was Kwon’s extradition annulled?
In keeping with the Courtroom, the Excessive Courtroom of Podgorica’s determination to permit Kwon to be extradited to the US for felony prosecution violated the nation’s felony process provisions.
One other argument central to Kwon’s profitable enchantment was the dedication of extradition precedence. Regardless of Kwon’s choice for South Korea, the Excessive Courtroom in Podgorica dominated in favor of an extradition to the US. This determination was based mostly on the priority of the US extradition request, which was obtained a day sooner than South Korea’s request.
Nonetheless, the Appellate Courtroom challenged this ruling. It identified that the US short-term detention request arrived on Mar. 27, 2023, after South Korea’s extradition request. South Korea’s request had been communicated through emails on Mar. 24, 2023, and Mar. 26, 2023 — previous the formal request on Mar. 28, 2023.
As such, the appeals courtroom decided that the case needs to be returned to the Courtroom of first occasion for retrial.
Kwon’s extradition has dragged on for a number of months, with each the US and South Korea in search of trials inside their jurisdiction. Authorities in each nations need Kwon to reply for his function within the collapse of Terra’s algorithmic UST stablecoin, which wiped over $40 billion from the crypto trade.
Terraform Labs slam SEC’s overreach
The SEC lately opposed Terraform Labs’ $166 million fee to Dentons, contending that the agency shouldn’t interact the legislation agency or cowl authorized bills for workers amidst chapter proceedings.
In a March 4 submitting, Terraform Labs responded to the SEC’s opposition to the $166 million retainer payment paid to legislation agency Dentons.
The bankrupt crypto agency criticized the SEC’s objection for example of presidency overreach. It additionally asserted that the regulator’s transfer aimed to disrupt proceedings earlier than trial.
In keeping with the agency:
“The SEC’s objection, framed as a creditor concern, is a pretext for its true motive: to drawback and distract an adversary on the eve of trial.”
The agency urged the courtroom to dismiss the SEC’s objections, citing them as containing authorized misinterpretations and factual inaccuracies.
