Our weekly roundup of news from East Asia curates the industry’s most important developments.
SBF’s Chinese bribe scandal worsens
According to October 11 testimony from Caroline Ellison, co-founder of FTX-linked hedge fund Alameda Research, her colleague — disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried — allegedly paid $150 million in bribes to Chinese government officials in 2021, higher than the $40 million disclosed initially.
Ellison said during the FTX trial that two years prior, $1 billion worth of Alameda Research’s digital assets on crypto exchanges OKX and Huobi were frozen by Chinese law enforcement as part of a money-laundering investigation. Senior FTX executives, such as chief operations officer Constance Wang and Alameda trader David Wa, were also involved in the incident. The individuals first tried to contact a Chinese lawyer to unfreeze the funds, which didn’t work.
Then, FTX and Alameda staff allegedly created accounts on OKX and Huobi using the identification of a Thai prostitute to negotiate the return of funds. When that didn’t work out, Ellison accused Bankman-Fried of paying a $150 million bribe to unfreeze the accounts. The bribe was recorded as “the thing” in future Alameda balance sheets. According to Ellison’s testimony, the funds were immediately unfrozen following the bribe.
Presiding Judge Lewis Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reminded the jurors that Bankman-Fried’s alleged bribery of Chinese officials is not within the scope of the ongoing FTX trial. Instead, a second trial relating to SBF’s bribery charges has been scheduled for March 11, 2024. The FTX trial will remain ongoing for the month of October.
Binance clarifies account freeze
Yi He, a co-founder of Binance, clarified on the Chinese social media app WeChat earlier this week that only accounts of users suspected of violating international sanctions will be frozen on the exchange.
The statement came after a wave of inquiries in response to local news reports that the exchange froze accounts of suspected Hamas militants per Israeli law enforcement’s request. Yi He explained:
“Hamas is a designated terrorist organization by the United Nations. Therefore, any organization, including banks and trading platforms, will need to cooperate on the receipt of freeze requests. This is not something Binance can decide on its own.”
The Binance executive commented: “I have no political biases, yet no trading platform can refuse such law enforcement requests. Palestine has an organized government. Hamas is a local militant group. They kill civilians; that’s the problem. Hamas is not Palestine; the freeze is targeted towards Hamas, not Palestine.”
In a follow-up post on October 11, Yi He further clarified that “Binance would not confiscate nor freeze assets of ordinary users. Rules are created by the strong; in the face of international regulations, Binance is a nobody.” She also pointed to the fact that, despite the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, the exchange has not frozen the accounts of ordinary Russians.
Crypto lending invalidated by second Chinese court
Crypto lending contracts in China are not protected by law because the underlying asset is illegal, a second Chinese court has ruled.
As narrated by the Nanchang People’s Court on October 10, plaintiff Mr. Ming lent 80,000 USDT to defendant Mr. Gang in April 2021 for the purpose of stablecoin trading. The loan was to be repaid within six months. Mr. Gang subsequently defaulted on the loan, leading to a civil lawsuit by Mr. Ming. Both the lawsuit and its appeal were dismissed.
In their decision, the presiding judge wrote:
“There are legal risks involved in participating in virtual currency investment and trading activities. If any legal person, unincorporated organization, or natural person invests in virtual currencies and related derivatives that violates public order and good customs, the relevant civil legal actions will be invalid, and the resulting losses shall be borne by them.”
The judge further explained that according to various legislation forming China’s crypto ban, “virtual currencies only exist in digital form, are not legal tender, and do not have legal compensation, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tether, etc., and cannot be used as currency in the market. Virtual currency-related business activities are illegal financial activities that harm national financial order, financial security and social public interests, and are strictly prohibited.”
The ruling does not extend to the digital yuan central bank digital currency, which the presiding judge said “is a legal currency in digital form issued by the People’s Bank of China. It is operated by designated operating agencies and redeemed by the public. It is equivalent to banknotes and coins.”
Previously in August, a Chinese man lost $10 million worth of Bitcoin after the borrower defaulted on his Bitcoin lending agreement and a court ruled that the contract was invalid, citing similar reasons as the Nanchang People’s Court.
Huobi hacker returns all assets
According to a statement by Justin Sun, de-facto owner of cryptocurrency exchange HTX, formerly known as Huobi, a hacker has returned all of the 5,000 Ether ($8 million) stolen during a security incident last month.
“We have confirmed that the hacker has fully returned all funds, as promised, and we have also paid the hacker a white hat bonus of 250 ETH. The hacker made the right choice. We would like to express our gratitude to everyone in the industry for their help,” Sun wrote. On September 25, Huobi’s hot wallet was hacked for 5,000 ETH in an incident first detected by blockchain analytics firm Cyvers Alerts.
Sun subsequently offered a bounty and threatened legal action if the funds were not returned. During the incident, the blockchain personality also claimed that the exchange held around $3 billion in users’ assets. Last month, Huobi rebranded as HTX, raising community eyebrows due to the similarity of the name to the now-defunct crypto exchange FTX.
Subscribe
The most engaging reads in blockchain. Delivered once a
week.
Zhiyuan Sun
Zhiyuan Sun is a journalist at Cointelegraph focusing on technology-related news. He has several years of experience writing for major financial media outlets such as The Motley Fool, Nasdaq.com and Seeking Alpha.
The government has said the £3 cap would stay in place for another year, until December 2025.
But speaking on Sunday morning with Trevor Phillips, Transport Secretary Louise Haugh indicated the government was considering abolishing the cap beyond that point to explore alternative methods of funding.
She said: “We’ve stepped in with funding to protect it at £3 until 31 December next year. And in that period, we’ll look to establish more targeted approaches.
“We’ve, through evaluation of the £2 cap, found that the best approach is to target it at young people.
“So we want to look at ways in order to ensure more targeted ways, just like we do with the concessionary fare for older people, we think we can develop more targeted ways that will better encourage people onto buses.”
Pressed again on whether that meant the single £3 cap would be removed after December 2025, and that other bus reliefs could be put in place, she replied: “That’s what we’re considering at the moment as we go through this year, as we have that time whilst the £3 cap is in place – because the evaluation that we had showed, it hadn’t represented good value for money, the previous cap.”
Advertisement
It comes after Ms Haigh also confirmed that HS2 would not run to Crewe.
There had been reports that Labour could instead build an “HS2-light” railway between Birmingham and Crewe.
But Ms Haigh said that while HS2 would be built from Birmingham to Euston, the government was “not resurrecting the plans for HS2”.
“HS2 Limited isn’t getting any further work beyond what’s been commissioned to Euston,” she added.
Last month the prime minster confirmed the £2 bus fare cap would rise to £3 – branded the “bus tax” by critics – saying that the previous government had not planned for the funding to continue past the end of 2024.
He said that although the cap would increase to £3, it would stay at that price until the end of 2025 “because I know how important it is”.
Manchester mayor to keep £2 cap
The cap rise has been unpopular with some in Labour, with Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham opting to keep the £2 cap in place for the whole of 2025, despite the maximum that can be charged across England rising to £3.
The region’s mayor said he was able to cap single fares at £2 because of steps he took to regulate the system and bring buses back into public ownership from last year.
He also confirmed plans to introduce a contactless payment system, with a daily and weekly cap on prices, as Greater Manchester moves towards a London-style system for public transport pricing.
Under devolution, local authorities and metro mayors can fund their own schemes to keep fares down, as has been the case in Greater Manchester, London and West Yorkshire.
Shelves will not be left empty this winter if farmers go on strike over tax changes, a cabinet minister has said.
Louise Haigh, the transport secretary, said the government would be setting out contingency plans to ensure food security is not compromised if farmers decide to protest.
Farmers across England and Wales have expressed anger that farms will no longer get 100% relief on inheritance tax, as laid out in Rachel Reeves’s budget last month.
Welsh campaign group Enough is Enough has called for a national strike among British farmers to stop producing food until the decision to impose inheritance tax on farms is reversed, while others also contemplate industrial action.
Asked by Trevor Phillips if she was concerned at the prospect that shelves could be empty of food this winter, Ms Haigh replied: “No, we think we put forward food security really as a priority, and we’ll work with farmers and the supply chain in order to ensure that.
“The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be setting out plans for the winter and setting out – as business as usual – contingency plans and ensuring that food security is treated as the priority it deserves to be.”
From April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.
However, farmers – who previously did not have to pay any inheritance tax – argue the change will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay.
Tom Bradshaw, the president of the National Farmers Union, said he had “never seen the united sense of anger that there is in this industry today”.
“I don’t for one moment condone that anyone will stop supplying the supermarkets,” he said.
“We saw during the COVID crisis that those unable to get their food were often either the very most vulnerable, or those that have been working long hours in hospitals and nurses – that is something we do not want to see again.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:06
Farmers ‘betrayed’ over tax change
Explaining why the tax changes were so unpopular, he said food production margins were “so low”, and “any liquid cash that’s been available has been reinvested in farm businesses” for the future.
“One of the immediate changes is that farms are going to have to start putting money into their pensions, which many haven’t previously done,” he said.
“They’re going to have to have life insurance policies in case of a sudden death. And unfortunately, that was cash that would previously have been invested in producing the country’s food for the future.”
Sir Keir has staunchly defended the measure, saying it will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.
However, the Conservatives have argued the changes amount to a “war on farmers” and have begun a campaign targeting the prime minister as a “farmer harmer”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:19
‘Farmers’ livelihoods are threatened’
Speaking to Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said he was happy with farmers protesting against the budget – as long as their methods and tactics were “lawful”.
“What the Labour government has done to farmers is absolutely shocking,” he said.
“These are farmers that, you know, they’re not well off particularly, they’re often actually struggling to make ends meet because farming is not very profitable these days. And of course, we rely on farmers for our food security.
Addressing the possible protests, Mr Philp said: “I think people have a right to protest, and obviously we respect the right to protest within the law, and it’s up to parliament to set where the law sits.
“So I think providing they’re behaving lawfully, legally, then they do have a right to protest.”