Australia: the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has initiated legal proceedings against the company Blockchain Mining Group NGS.
Approximately 41 million dollars in digital assets, invested with these companies by over 450 Australian citizens, have been transferred to financial restructuring specialists. ASIC alleges that these companies have violated the law by providing financial services without the proper license.
Let’s see all the details below.
Blockchain Mining Group: the court orders the seizure of $41 million in crypto in Australia
As anticipated, an Australian federal court has granted the request of the national market regulatory authority to transfer approximately 41 million dollars in digital assets.
These were invested by over 450 Australians with the blockchain mining group NGS to three experts from McGrathNicol, an independent consulting and restructuring company.
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) announced today that it has initiated civil proceedings against NGS Crypto, NGS Digital, and NGS Group.
This together with the respective sole directors of the companies: Brett Mendham, Ryan Brown and Mark Ten Caten. Mendham has also been subject to a travel ban outside of Australia.
The court issued the order following ASIC’s statement that the companies violated Australian law by providing financial services without an Australian financial services license.
The ASIC has stated that NGS companies have targeted Australian investors by offering investments in blockchain mining packages with fixed-rate returns. blockchain
They would have encouraged him to use funds transferred from regulated super funds to self-managed super funds (SMSFs), and then convert them into cryptocurrency.
It should be emphasized that a company’s involvement in a restructuring process does not necessarily mean that the companies are bankrupt.
The ASIC has expressed concern about the possible risk of dissipation of funds and has appointed a bankruptcy trustee as a precautionary measure to protect the assets.
While the investigation is still ongoing, ASIC has not requested an absolute ban on the companies’ activities, but only temporary and final injunctions to prevent them from operating without a license.
Legislative reform to combat money laundering in Queensland
The law enforcement agencies in Queensland, the second largest state in Australia, are pushing for a review of the state’s cryptocurrency laws such as Bitcoin (BTC), aiming to strengthen confiscation powers.
The Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) has highlighted gaps in the current law, allowing for the illicit use of cryptocurrencies and has made recommendations for reform.
In its appeal to reform the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act of 2002 (CPCA), the CCC highlights the widespread use of cryptocurrencies in organized crime, with decentralized transactions that are difficult to trace.
The figures indicate that between 2022 and 2023, funds ranging from 10 to 25 billion dollars were recycled in Queensland through various means.
The CCC has identified seven priority areas for reform and has put forward ten recommendations to modernize the asset confiscation regime in Queensland.
Among these recommendations is the expansion of the concept of money laundering to include crimes related to cryptocurrencies and the enhancement of seizure powers to gather evidence and identify criminals.
Currently, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) do not provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to effectively seize digital resources as evidence.
This is due to a lack of clear definitions and procedures. The CCC proposes a single authority for the seizure of cryptocurrencies in Queensland, also addressing the issue of the use of confiscated assets.
They are currently bound by provisions that limit their effectiveness in helping victims or rehabilitating offenders.
Finally, the CCC suggests that the exclusive responsibility for the confiscation of digital resources should be entrusted to the Commission itself. This is in order to ensure greater efficiency and expertise in confiscation procedures.
