header-logo header-logo

11 October 2024
Issue: 8089 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Crypto , Cybercrime , Regulatory , Insolvency
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Crypto seize & freeze, & the digital landscape

192561

NLJ serves up a double helping of crypto this week. First, Andrew Bird KC takes a detailed look at the powers to freeze and destroy digital assets. Next up, Iain Young covers the legal landscape of crypto in Scotland & England

Criminal gangs are exploiting crypto to hold and trade the proceeds of crime. Consequently, new powers were added to the crimefighter’s arsenal in April. Bird KC, of 5 St Andrew’s Hill, takes a detailed look at what’s available and how the powers can be used.

Bird writes: ‘The extension to the criminal powers brings cryptoassets squarely within the scope of restraint and enforcement powers.’

Meanwhile, Scotland has different laws on digital assets and therefore faces unique obstacles in this area, as Young, partner at Morton Fraser MacRoberts, explains.

Young covers key questions about the transfer of digital assets in Scotland and England, as well as their legal status, security interests, traceability, accessibility, title proof, and the implications of insolvency.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll