The Australian organizer requests the Supreme Court to allow the appeal in the building nerve case

The Australian Financial Authority will seek to obtain permission from the Supreme Court to appeal the governor of the Court of First Instance, which prefers Fintech, which has found that the fixed earning service associated with encryption is not a financial product.

Australian Securities and Investment Committee (ASIC) He said On May 21, you want to ask the Supreme Court of Australia to clarify what is the definition of the financial product and clarify the conditions in which the benefits gain product is regulated and assets are transferred from one form to another.

The Supervisory Authority said: “The definition of the financial product has been formulated in a wide and neutral way of technology, and ASEC believes that it is in general interest to clarify this.”

“This clarification is important because it applies to all financial products and services, whether they involve encryption wages or not.”

On April 22, David O’Callaghan, Wendy Abraham and Catherine Button’s judges found that the fixed -related return product, or a managed investment plan or derived under the Companies Law.

Asek said the court would consider its request. Special leave required In the appeal of the Supreme Court, it is only granted in cases where it will answer important legal questions or issues of general importance.

A spokesman for “Cockline”, a “Queligraf” spokesman, said that it has now escalated to a “broader legal question” about the definition of a financial product, which extends “beyond the blocks and the encryption sector.