Lawyer of Web3: The Judicial notification of tokens of the Hong Kong court, chicken ribs or weapon?

Recently, when Lawyer Mankun surfed online, he saw such a news: Hong Kong court issued to the TRON network two illegal wallets to send token legal notices. According to reports, the case is a network fraud, and the amount involved is about 2.65 million USDT. The Hong Kong courts use the judicial notification to the tokenize and "airdrop" to the wallet involved in this way.

In fact, this method is not the first in Hong Kong. As early as 2022, RBB LAB, a technical development company of the Saint Marino Republic, used NFT technology to send a court voting to a former employee and a contractor. In addition, Britain and the United States also shot the legal documents to anonymous wallet through blockchain technology.

However, it is certain that the use of this technology for judicial documents in Hong Kong will undoubtedly open a new judicial pattern.

Document tokenization, new judicial pattern

Regardless of the face -to -face delivery, email transmission, or announcement, traditional judicial notices need to know who the notification person is, where to live, how to contact. However, the decentralization and anonymity of the blockchain network allows everyone to hide behind the wallet address. Except for what they do, other information is unknown.

This makes it difficult for the judiciary: the person behind the address cannot be directly located, and the effectiveness of the traditional notification method will naturally not be able to talk about it.

Against this background, the alternate legal documents came into being. By converting judicial notifications into NFT or tokens, and "airdrop" to the target wallet address, the judicial institution can bypass the problem of identity recognition and realize the direct delivery of the chain. This not only solves the problem of unable to cover the space on the chain, but also provides legal basis and technical support for the freezing and recovery of illegal assets on the chain.

Here, most people should ask a key issue: tokenization notification is not to play the role of a chicken ribs, and can it achieve frozen and recovery?

" Chicken ribs" or judicial weapon?

Before answering this question, let's take a look at the relevant cases before and understand the judicial logic of their underlying level.

In the British OSBourne case, the court passed the NFT notification to clarify the status of NFT assets being protected by law, and provided a legal basis for asset freezing and follow -up accountability. Learn legal information and successfully freeze some assets through the cooperation of the exchange; in this case of Hong Kong, the legal liability is also directly applied to the anonymous blockchain address through the tokenization legal documents. This method not only realizes the direct restraint of address holders, but also effectively informs the third -party exchanges and other relevant agencies, which further strengthens the implementation of the law.

It can be found that the core judicial logic of the three cases is that the court sends a legal notice through the NFT to directly bind the legal constraints to the blockchain address. You know, you must use a wallet address in WEB3, which means that the wallet address is the best identity on the chain. Therefore, the court adopted a kind of reverse logic: it is no longer grasping the actual identity, but directly applied legal constraints to the identity of the chain. This method ensures that even if the subject is behind the address, the legal effect can still be traced back to its behavior.

In the cases of the United States and Hong Kong, the coordinated operation on the chain and the chain was opened. For example, Hong Kong's token documents not only facing address holders, but also informing third parties such as the exchange: if you want to play with this address, you may touch my legal red line; if you recognize this address, this address is recognized by this address. Then, please cooperate with my asset freezing and restrictions of transactions -this also makes exchanges and other institutions an important part of judicial execution. If the mechanism can be carried out smoothly, it can not only effectively prevent the transfer and diffusion of illegal assets, but also may also help victims to protect their rights and achieve potential losses.

In addition, tokens have technically realized the openness and transparency of judicial procedures. The generation, sending, and receiving process of the documents are recorded on the chain, which has the characteristics of unavailable tampering. This not only provides reliable evidence chain, but also strengthens the credibility of judicial behavior. At the same time, unlike the traditional notification method, tokens are not limited by the border issues of the jurisdiction area. Its transmission effect can directly cover global activities on the chain, providing more possibilities for cross -border cases.

Realistic limitations and challenges

However, the ideal is full, is it full of reality? Lawyer Mankun believes that although the library of tokens has demonstrated the huge potential of the combination of judicial and blockchain technology, there are still many challenges to be resolved in practical operations.

The first is the existence of mixed coins, unsatisfactory centralized exchanges, and decentralized exchanges, which provides a convenient path for asset transfer. By mixing the assets of different users, the sources and whereabouts of the funds can be covered, and the decentralized exchange does not cooperate with law enforcement operations without a centralized management mechanism. "Open one eye and close one eye" attitude. The existence of these tools and platforms has greatly increased the difficulty of tracking assets. Even if the documents have been issued, they may not be able to prevent the assets from being further dispersed.

Secondly, the rapid transfer of assets on the chain. The execution of tokens requires time, while the speed of blockchain transactions is in seconds. Before the successful "airdrop" to the target wallet, the offenders may have completed the transfer operation. For example, in this case of Hong Kong, millions of USDT have been transferred before the documents are issued. How to find a balance between notifying delay and the rapid transfer of assets is one of the core issues facing the technology. In addition, for the transfer of assets that can be transformed, it still needs a clearer mechanism design through legal procedures and specific implementation paths.

At the same time, although the wallet can be used as a chain identity, it has multiple wallets that are also the status quo of most web3 players. Therefore, the freezing of a single address is difficult to touch its complete asset network, and it cannot cause very "fatal" to its subsequent chain activities. The constraints. What's more complicated is that offenders may also use the new wallet address or wallet on other chains to hide or disperse assets with mixed coins to avoid judicial tracking. This decentralization makes it difficult for the effectiveness of the document to cover the complete illegal behavior chain behind the address.

In addition, the docking of technology and judicial systems cannot be ignored. At present, the degree of acceptance and technical understanding of blockchain technology in differential systems varies, which may lead to limited application scope of token documents. At the same time, the definition of blockchain assets in different judicial jurisdictions and the recognition of token documents in different jurisdictions are also different. Cross -border cases are particularly easy to fall into trouble due to laws of application. For example, in certain jurisdictions, the legal effect of notifications in the chain may not be acknowledged at all, which makes cross -border execution more complicated. Therefore, how to seamlessly connect the legal behavior on the chain with traditional judicial procedures still requires more technical support and mechanism improvement.

Lawyer Mankun Summary

Vibration legal documents have undoubtedly opened a new path for the combination of judicial and blockchain technology. It also provides feasible solutions for solving the legal problems brought by the anonymous wallet, which also marks that the judicial community has gradually accepted the change of Web3. However, as mentioned above, in order to truly realize comprehensive and effective laws, it is necessary to cope with many challenges from reality.

From the perspective of current technology and actual judicial applications, lawyers of Mankun suggest that you can start from the following directions:

1. Promote the in -depth collaboration of judicial and blockchain ecology

The judicial organs should actively cooperate with blockchain technology providers, compliance exchanges and industry associations to establish a stronger chain law enforcement support system. For example, through the introduction of compliance nodes or cooperation with verifications on the chain to strengthen the real -time tracking and asset freezing of illegal acts. At the same time, promote the formulation of industry standards, set clear compliance guidelines for service providers such as exchanges and mixed coins, and form a complete collaborative network.

2. Improve the legal and technical framework of token documents

The existing token scripture mechanism needs to further enhance its legal authority and technical credibility. The judicial organs should cooperate with technical developers to explore more efficient tokenization solutions, such as introducing more certification information in the documents or using compulsory technical means (such as anti -transfer labels). At the same time, establish globalized legal recognition and technical standards to solve the effectiveness of cross -judicial jurisdiction.

3. Strengthen the asset control mechanism after the notification

In response to the rapid transfer of assets, it is recommended to increase real -time monitoring and early warning mechanisms on the basis of notifications on the chain. Once the illegal assets are transferred, the freezing process should be triggered by the cooperation with the exchange and the chain agreement to minimize the possibility of asset transfer and whitewashing at the greatest extent. In addition, it is necessary to explore the tracking techniques for cross -chain bridges and decentralized wallets to provide more feasible execution paths for victims.

4. Strengthen user education and optimize the response process

The judicial organs and industry institutions should promote the education of victims. For example, through media or public relations activities, inform the public that once fraud or asset losses occur, the case should be reported and information such as wallet address and transaction records should be provided as soon as possible. The sooner the victims report, the more the judicial organs can act quickly and reduce the risk of asset transfer or loss.

The significance of token -based legal documents is not only technological innovation. It is also an important practice of the judicial system to actively embrace the blockchain, showing greater potential by integrating. At the same time, this trend also shows that blockchain technology can not only serve innovation and business, but also become an important cornerstone in the rule of law society.

This is also the ultimate goal of lawyer Mankun: to promote the implementation and application of web3 -related laws. With the continuous progress of technology and justice, we believe that the transparency and unable tampering characteristics of the blockchain will play a greater role in judicial practice and provide reliable solutions for the global asset protection on the global chain asset protection. Build a more solid bridge on fairness and justice under the chain.