A South Korean MLA, Kim Naam-Kuk was recently approved by allegations that he “hidden” the cryptocurrency assets. The matter focuses on the fact that South Korea’s laws needed to be declared their grip at the time of alleged hiding.
In the latest Report From the South Korean local news media selected from the media, Southern Seoul District Court Judge Jong Wu-Jong found that virtual property was not subject to compulsory disclosure under the Public Service Ethics Act during the period in question in question.
Details of the background of the case
Kim was accused that South Korea accused the Financial Action Task Force to fail to report a $ 4.5 million cryptocurrency profits before implementing the “travel rule” of the Financial Action Task Force, which requires asset disclosure. Read the selected business report:
Kim is alleged to have corresponds to total assets Agigate before the bank deposits account during the 2021-2022 National Assembly Asset Declaration period before the standard date (31 December) in her virtual asset account (31 December). Last year, and using the remaining deposit to buy coins.
In particular, critics have alleged that the purpose of Kim’s actions was to disrupt the National Assembly’s Ethics Committee from accurately reviewing the financial revelations of MPs.
However, the court determined that there were “insufficient evidence” to deliberate intervention or Kim had a legal duty to disclose his cryptocurrency holdings. While reporting this, local news media wrote:
Jong Wu-Yong, a judge of the 9th Criminal Division of the Southern Seoul District Court, did not convince Kim of fraudulently obstructing public duty from 2 pm that day.
It is worth noting that this decision concluded a case that provoked significant political and public investigation, which Kim stepped away from the Democratic party to reduce the impact of the controversy on her colleagues.
Legal context and political implications
Judge Jong said that while Kim’s total assets had reduced their actual holdings to a great extent, the lack of legal need to declare cryptocurrency holdings meant that no law was violated.
In addition, the court found no clear evidence that Kim interrupted the ability of the committee to deliberately review the property of MPs. Despite being acquitted, Kim’s case has trusted a debate on the accountability and transparency of MPs in the Cryptocurrency era.
Critics argued that keeping important cryptocurrency assets could cause a conflict of interest, especially since Kim had previously supported the law by delaying 20% proposed 20%. Tax on crypto profit,
Although Kim has denied any wrongdoing, the dispute has highlighted the need for clear rules that control the cryptocurrency holdings of public authorities.
Charged with Dall-E, chart from Tradingview
