- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,086
- Points
- 83
Singapore High Court Judge says crypto is worthless trash? (And contradicts himself in the process).
https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/He...-in-Singapore-throw-up-quirks-legal-novelties
Or is there something not reported? Or the plaintiffs lawyers are dumb?
"The winding-up application was eventually dismissed. Justice Coomaraswamy said that Algorand had standing to bring about a winding-up application, but he did not accept that crypto is money."
Anyway, according to the chart, the BVI court already ordered 3AC to be wound up and Singapore HC already endorsed the BVI court ruling.
Dunno why then the SG HC judge seems trying to be funny about asking if crypto is indeed money which probably isn't even relevant in this case, based on this BT report of the court case. He is 3AC (Singapore branch) shareholder is it? Oki, no offence, but isn't this the same as owing someone property of a certain value, regardless of if it is money? Even u accidentally bang down a cyclist, one also can be declared bankrupt if u cannot afford to pay damages and didn't even steal any form of currency cash from the victim.
Or if u misappropriated someone's property put in your custody, like irresponsibly lost some bitcoins for them.
Seems to me that this Justice Coomaraswamy is like trying to be a bit funny, says "Algorand had standing to bring about a winding-up application, but he did not accept that crypto is money."
This Justice has missed the woods for the trees? Hello, misplaced or misappropriated someone's asset or cause any damages, as long as the asset is worth something, means must repay the debt, no?
Can someone explain to me what is the relevance of this judge fascination with whether the crypto is a form of money, or if this judge is just demented or trying to be funny.
If judge already determined that the defendants "Algorand had standing to bring about a winding-up application", then why own self throw spanner into the works and disqualify based on whether crypto is currency or not.
Isn't this like the judge shooting himself in the foot (self contradicting himself) in admission that something material is owed (thus the 'standing to bring about a winding-up application'), then U turn and say it's not an sovereign country fiat currency, so no more 'standing' hahaha based on a stupid technicality of the judge own self invention?
Can some legal philosophers please really examine this judge magical fantasy thinking. Or did he judge based on self benefit or consult some sharmans to arrive at the final decision?
To me, this is like a judge saying publicly that a woman is authorised to enter a woman's toilet (because she is female), but then, he subsequently doesn't like the idea she is wearing a red dress, so sorry, oops,now u cannot use the woman's toilet anymore, because u r wearing a red dress (only those with dull colour dress can enter, based on judge mood/ personal preference); there being no dispute that one was originally allowed to enter the woman's toilet, being a 100% certified female person.
No?
====================
PS: and yes, answering the reporters question, sea shells need not be considered solely on basis of being currency.
If suppose I stole a rare sea shell from a collector, sold or misappropriated it but were caught and sentenced for theft in court, the original owner can sue me for compensation for his stolen sea shell or even liquidating my assets to make good the replacement value of the stolen sea shell if I ignore his compensation requests.
Whether sea shell is a common currency or not, does not absolve me of having to replace his lost/ misappropriated property as a result of my misdeed.
So I really dunno, why this judge seems to be trying to be mischievous, in raising a technicality , which embarrasses his own prior pronouncement in the first place.
https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/He...-in-Singapore-throw-up-quirks-legal-novelties
Or is there something not reported? Or the plaintiffs lawyers are dumb?
"The winding-up application was eventually dismissed. Justice Coomaraswamy said that Algorand had standing to bring about a winding-up application, but he did not accept that crypto is money."
Anyway, according to the chart, the BVI court already ordered 3AC to be wound up and Singapore HC already endorsed the BVI court ruling.
Dunno why then the SG HC judge seems trying to be funny about asking if crypto is indeed money which probably isn't even relevant in this case, based on this BT report of the court case. He is 3AC (Singapore branch) shareholder is it? Oki, no offence, but isn't this the same as owing someone property of a certain value, regardless of if it is money? Even u accidentally bang down a cyclist, one also can be declared bankrupt if u cannot afford to pay damages and didn't even steal any form of currency cash from the victim.
Or if u misappropriated someone's property put in your custody, like irresponsibly lost some bitcoins for them.
Seems to me that this Justice Coomaraswamy is like trying to be a bit funny, says "Algorand had standing to bring about a winding-up application, but he did not accept that crypto is money."
This Justice has missed the woods for the trees? Hello, misplaced or misappropriated someone's asset or cause any damages, as long as the asset is worth something, means must repay the debt, no?
Can someone explain to me what is the relevance of this judge fascination with whether the crypto is a form of money, or if this judge is just demented or trying to be funny.
If judge already determined that the defendants "Algorand had standing to bring about a winding-up application", then why own self throw spanner into the works and disqualify based on whether crypto is currency or not.
Isn't this like the judge shooting himself in the foot (self contradicting himself) in admission that something material is owed (thus the 'standing to bring about a winding-up application'), then U turn and say it's not an sovereign country fiat currency, so no more 'standing' hahaha based on a stupid technicality of the judge own self invention?
Can some legal philosophers please really examine this judge magical fantasy thinking. Or did he judge based on self benefit or consult some sharmans to arrive at the final decision?
To me, this is like a judge saying publicly that a woman is authorised to enter a woman's toilet (because she is female), but then, he subsequently doesn't like the idea she is wearing a red dress, so sorry, oops,now u cannot use the woman's toilet anymore, because u r wearing a red dress (only those with dull colour dress can enter, based on judge mood/ personal preference); there being no dispute that one was originally allowed to enter the woman's toilet, being a 100% certified female person.
No?
====================
PS: and yes, answering the reporters question, sea shells need not be considered solely on basis of being currency.
If suppose I stole a rare sea shell from a collector, sold or misappropriated it but were caught and sentenced for theft in court, the original owner can sue me for compensation for his stolen sea shell or even liquidating my assets to make good the replacement value of the stolen sea shell if I ignore his compensation requests.
Whether sea shell is a common currency or not, does not absolve me of having to replace his lost/ misappropriated property as a result of my misdeed.
So I really dunno, why this judge seems to be trying to be mischievous, in raising a technicality , which embarrasses his own prior pronouncement in the first place.
