As Victims Say Commission Cozying Up To The Industry Where Is The European Commission Opposing Crypto Fraud Compensation Fund Heading?
All you should know about the crypto fraud compensation funds. Why Is EC shying away from it? Read the whole article here.
The Case Of Crypto Fraud Compensation Fund
On all cryptocurrency transactions occurring within the EU, the European Commission is opposing the creation of the crypto crime victim superfund to be financed with $ 0.0001 per dollar. It does not have the competence to set up as well as administer such a fund as the Commission says. That most crypto crimes occur outside the EU jurisdiction is what it argues.
EC Says It Lacks The Needed Competencies
In the scenario, it came to be in response to a petition that was lodged with the European Union Parliament by one of the consortiums of crypto fraud victims that is the remarks made by the EC. Thereafter, the victims insist that as the EC, which comes as one of the largest bureaucracies that are ideally placed it is thereby to administer the proposed fund in their petition.
Here, in this case, it was that the commission which had previously turned down the petition thereby says victims must instead continue to pursue their respective cases through the national law enforcement agencies in its response to the EUP. Victims thereby can seek compensation through existing channels as well as with the legal persons responsible for their loss according to the EC.
EU rules on compensation may be applicable in cases of intentional violent crime as the Commission also clarifies.
Victims Say EC Too Cozy With The Industry
Accusing the Commission of taking an anti-consumerism stance the victims are meanwhile assailing the EC’s tepid response. The victims’ lawyer Jonathan Levy says that in a statement:
To assist victims of crypto crime even while promulgating a union-wide regulatory scheme for crypto assets, the EU Commission pleads a lack of competence. Having one of the most expansive and well-trained bureaucracies in the world but cannot administer a simple victim fund which is self-replenishing through a virtually unnoticeable 0.0001 cent per Euro transaction fee, the Commission administers billions of Euros in grants and credits every year.
In blockchain innovation awards and investments, the lawyer reveals that the Commission has invested over $110 million. Levy says the Commission must have some competency in overseeing crypto assets unless it simply distributes the Union funds with no hope of oversight pointing out that the EC’s claims that it is now lacking most of the ability to administer what the superfund rings hollow.
The lawyer also suggests that by failing to take action, the EC is seen as abetting crypto criminality with the EUP estimating that at least $5 to $5.5 billion in crypto-asset fraud occur annually in the EU. With clients having suffered losses exceeding $44 million Levy adds that :
With the European Commission delegated ccTLD, the EU Commission itself remains a host to crypto criminality in a major way. Defrauding victims including his clients of well over $4.4 billion, is the EU being a continuing host to the One Coin/One Life pyramid scam.
Remaining operational despite the arrests and disappearances of some of the masterminds, the Onecoin crypto pyramid scheme had recently come with its scam warning alert dropped by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Expert Says Superfund Feasible
Moving on the technical expert Michael K McKibben is found to be saying that he found that the distributed ledger nodes that are already charging a node transaction or relay fee on much of the $110 billion daily crypto asset trading volume in an expert opinion lodged with the EU Parliament Petitions Committee on October 20.
The addition of an unnoticeable 0.0001 cent per $ insurance fund fee would provide for a victim superfund as the technical expert agrees with the petitioners. The proposed EU superfund would provide much-needed relief for victims of Ponzi schemes, hacks, fraudulent ICOs, and extortion that utilise or involve crypto assets as the expert concludes that since crypto assets are currently uninsurable.
Giving his opinion on why he thinks the superfund is viable, is McKibben, an American software engineer:
Thereby making the addition of an EU insurance fund fee to a distributed ledger system relatively simple to implement, many nodes are actually slave units with no independent discretion.
Victims of crypto fraud are now pushing for EU authorities to help set up the self-replenishing superfund after failing to get redress via national courts. The EUP will continue to seek input before deciding the next step in the wake of the Commission‘s response. To help bolster the petition, Levy says other stakeholders can still come forward and give their opinions.
More voices are heard as it comes to be crypto fraud compensation. So stay tuned while we dig into more details bringing you the right conversation of crypto fraud funds.