gtag('config', 'G-0PFHD683JR');
Bitcoin

The court ends the U.S. Treasury’s appeal on the coin of metal to criticize the hurricane

The American Court of Appeal for the eleventh department rejected an appeal submitted by the Currency Currency Center against the US Treasury due to the 2022 foreign assets penalties against the service of traveling for travel.

On Thursday’s file, the Court of Appeal granted a request to evacuate the minimum court ruling and we return instructions to dismiss as part of a joint file with Coin Center and the United States Treasury. According to the court, the chapter will mainly conclude the legal challenge of the currency center against the Office of Foreign Asset Control of the Ministry of Treasury (OFAC).

Source: The American Court of Appeal for the eleventh district

In 2022, OFAC added a multiple wallet connected to Tornado Cash to the approved entity list. The currency center filed a lawsuit claiming that the Treasury “has passed [its] Legal Authority “in penalties, although there are other lawsuits submitted by the parties concerned, including one of the six users of Tornado Cash with the support of Crypto Excination Coinbase.

The original (torn) code price of Tornado Cash increased by more than 14 % to $ 10.55 on the news on Monday, before regaining trading at $ 9.47 at the time of publication.

“This is the official end of the battle of our trial on the legal authority behind [Tornado Cash] Penalties ” He said The Executive Director of the Peter Van Valcperberg Currency Center in Monday’s Publication X.

Cointelegraph has arrived at a spokesman for the metal currency center but did not receive a response at the time of publication.

Related to: During the Trump era, the US Treasury can follow a different approach in the hurricane criticism

In January, the American District Court of the Western Region in Texas ordered the cancellation of OFAC sanctions against the confusion service, as part of the case by Cash Six Tornado.

Torno Cash dropped from the lists of citizens specially appointed in March, under the pretext that the case was “a discussion” and did not require a final ruling.