sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Mukul Rohatgi

Supreme Court Highlights Legal Gaps in Ongoing Bitcoin Extortion Case Amid Outdated Cryptocurrency Laws

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Highlights Legal Gaps in Ongoing Bitcoin Extortion Case Amid Outdated Cryptocurrency Laws SEBI Bans Arshad Warsi, Wife for One Year Over Sadhna Broadcast Pump-and-Dump Scam Supreme Court Upholds ₹1 Lakh Fine on Odisha PSC Over Judicial Exam Evaluation Error NPAC to Host Conference on Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Reflecting on a Decade and Planning the Future Delhi High Court Orders Mohak Mangal to Remove Defamatory Content Targeting ANI Supreme Court Issues Notice on Byju’s Insolvency Case Appeals by BCCI and Riju Raveendran Arunachal Pradesh: Exploring Its Rich Tribal Heritage, Natural Beauty, and Development Challenges JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DSA LEGAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT TRENTAR PRIVATE LIMITED JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UGRO CAPITAL LTD Supreme Court Highlights Legal Gaps in Ongoing Bitcoin Extortion Case Amid Outdated Cryptocurrency Laws PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 01 June 2025 India’s Supreme Court continues to highlight gaps in outdated cryptocurrency laws through high-profile Bitcoin extortion cases. Learn about the legal grey areas, court proceedings, and regulatory concerns in this evolving crypto landscape. Supreme Court Case Sheds Light on Legal Loopholes in Cryptocurrency Regulation The ongoing case of Shailesh Babulal Bhatt, accused of cryptocurrency fraud in multiple Indian states, underscores the growing urgency for a modern legal framework around digital assets. The case was heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi. Advocates Highlight Lack of Crypto Regulation Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave and Mukul Rohatgi argued that India’s existing cryptocurrency laws are outdated and inadequate to handle cases involving Bitcoin extortion or fraud. During the hearing, Justice Kant criticized the government’s vague stance on crypto regulation, stating that relying solely on “watching international economic conditions” is not enough. ASG Bhati Defends Current Legal Proceedings Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati asserted that the real issue lies with the petitioner’s actions, not the lack of a framework. She emphasized that the petitioner falsely presented himself as an investor without providing proof and claimed the case was a “pure extortion matter.” Bitcoin Wallets and KYC Compliance Concerns ASG Bhati pointed out a key enforcement challenge: wallets that do not follow KYC (Know Your Customer) norms. While agencies can freeze KYC-compliant wallets, non-compliant wallets remain a legal loophole in cryptocurrency enforcement. Court Observes the Need for a Regulatory Framework The Court stressed the need for proper cryptocurrency regulation rather than complete prohibition, equating unregulated crypto activity to hawala transactions. Justice Kant made it clear that the regulatory vacuum increases opportunities for misuse. Details of the Petitioner’s Legal Situation Rohatgi revealed that Bhatt had been incarcerated since August 2024 and appeared before investigative agencies 15 times. He argued for temporary bail, stating that the petitioner had filed FIRs against police for extortion and was later named in counter FIRs, though he wasn’t charged in any predicate offense. Supreme Court Postpones Final Decision Due to the ongoing investigation, the Court deferred its decision until July, allowing authorities more time to complete inquiries. The bench maintained neutrality in its remarks, stating it would not comment on the petitioner’s guilt or innocence for now. India’s Judiciary Continues to Push for Crypto Legislation This is not the first instance where the Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for crypto legislation. In November 2023, a Public Interest Litigation seeking guidelines for cryptocurrency mining and trading was dismissed by a bench including Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, and former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, stating that the matter lies within Parliament’s domain. Government Promises Discussions on Crypto Policy In September 2023, Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court that a comprehensive review of domestic and international cryptocurrency regulation was underway. Despite multiple hearings since January 2024, no concrete legal framework has been introduced. Final Remarks: Need for Policy, Not Judicial Intervention In April 2025, a bench led by Justice BR Gavai (now Chief Justice of India) and AG Masih dismissed a plea under Article 142 of the Constitution seeking court-imposed crypto fraud regulations. The bench reiterated that such policy decisions must be addressed by the appropriate legislative authorities. Conclusion: Bridging the Gap Between Technology and Law The ongoing Bitcoin extortion case has spotlighted the legal grey areas in India’s cryptocurrency regulation. As the judiciary repeatedly underscores the urgent need for a clear and updated legal framework, it becomes evident that relying on outdated laws in the age of digital finance is no longer sustainable. With rising incidents of crypto-related fraud, extortion, and misuse, both courts and enforcement agencies are constrained without concrete legislative backing. India stands at a crucial juncture—balancing innovation and investor protection with robust, modern laws. Until Parliament enacts a comprehensive cryptocurrency regulatory framework, the legal ambiguity will continue to hinder justice and compromise financial integrity. The case of Shailesh Bhatt is not just a courtroom drama; it’s a wake-up call for policymakers to act swiftly and decisively. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Highlights Legal Gaps in Ongoing Bitcoin Extortion Case Amid Outdated Cryptocurrency Laws Supreme Court Highlights Legal Gaps in Ongoing Bitcoin Extortion Case Amid Outdated Cryptocurrency Laws Sada Law • June 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments SEBI Bans Arshad Warsi, Wife for One Year Over Sadhna Broadcast Pump-and-Dump Scam SEBI Bans Arshad Warsi, Wife for One Year Over Sadhna Broadcast Pump-and-Dump Scam Sada Law • June 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds ₹1 Lakh Fine on Odisha PSC Over Judicial Exam Evaluation Error Supreme Court Upholds ₹1 Lakh Fine on Odisha PSC Over Judicial Exam Evaluation Error Sada Law • June 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Highlights Legal Gaps in Ongoing Bitcoin Extortion Case Amid Outdated Cryptocurrency Laws Read More »

Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for “making mockery” of anti-defection law

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for “making mockery” of anti-defection law Union Minister Kiren Rijiju: The Waqf Amendment Bill Is Prospective Rather Than Retrospective Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. Punjab & Haryana High Court: Child in Womb During Accident Is Subject To Reimbursement Under MV Act What it implies signifies Sam Altman claims that OpenAI’s GPUs are “melting” over Ghibli-style AI art Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: Gurminder Singh, Punjab Advocate General, Steps Down Over 3 Crore Cases Disposed of in First National Lok Adalat of 2025; Settlement Value Crosses ₹18,212 Crore AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF CSR IN THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for “making mockery” of anti-defection law NITU KUMARI 03 Apr 2025 Update: 02 Apr 2025 CM Revanth Reddy is reported to have recently made a statement in the legislative assembly that no bye-elections would be held even if opposition Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs switched sides to the ruling Congress. The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticized Congress leader and Telangana Chief Minister (CM) Revanth Reddy for reportedly declaring in the state legislature that there would be no bye-elections in the state even if members of the opposition BRS defected to the ruling Congress. The court of Justices Augustine George Masih and B.R. Gavai declared,*”If this is said on the floor of the house, your Hon’ble CM is making a mockery of the *10th Schedule (anti-defection law).” The court was considering a case that stemmed from petitions to dismiss Danam Nagender, Kadiyam Srihari, and Venkata Rao Tellam, three Telangana MLAs who defected to the Congress after winning elections on the BRS ticket. Two BRS MLAs, Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy, as well as Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, an MLA for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), contested this in the Supreme Court. The Speaker has been criticized by the petitioners for not reaching a decision on the issue in a timely manner. Appearing for the petitioner-side, Senior Advocate C. Aryaman Sundaram today apprised the Supreme Court about CM Reddy’s statement. “The Chief Minister on 26th March in the Assembly told the members that ‘I assure you through the Speaker that there will be no bye-elections whether you switch sides’ … it is an Assembly proceeding,” C. Aryama Sundaram said. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the official respondents and countered that the Assembly proceedings were not in question in the present case. He clarified that he was not representing the CM in this case. Justice B.R. Gavai, however, suggested that the senior lawyer warn the CM against making such controversial statements in the legislature.“Mr. Rohatgi, you have appeared for the Hon’ble Chief Minister once in that case. You better warn that no repeat action … we know we are slow in issuing contempt notices, but we are also not powerless,” Justice Gavai said. The Supreme Court observed that statements made in legislatures have sanctity.“When politicians say something in the Assembly, it has got sanctity. In fact, the judgments say when we interpret laws, the speech given on the floor of the House can be used for interpreting,” the Bench said. Revanth Reddy had previously run into similar issues after the top court strongly objected to his remarks regarding a bail ruling for BRS leader K. Kavitha. Rohatgi also contended at today’s hearing that a High Court cannot, in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, mandate that the Speaker make decisions regarding disqualification within a set amount of time. He went on to say that in these situations, courts can only ask the Speaker. The Speaker’s tardiness in sending out notices regarding the disqualification petitions, however, was questioned by the highest court.“Shall we record your statement that the Supreme Court can’t issue directions to the Speaker even if the Speaker doesn’t decide the disqualification for 3 or 4 years?” it asked. Another lawyer proposed that the Parliament set a schedule for the Speaker if it feels it is essential. Justice Gavai responded by saying that the Court’s periodic directions are what actually, to a large degree, support democracy. He emphasized that politicians are now required to submit affidavits revealing their criminal histories prior to running for office, thanks to the Supreme Court’s intervention. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for “making mockery” of anti-defection law Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for “making mockery” of anti-defection law sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 3, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Union Minister Kiren Rijiju: The Waqf Amendment Bill Is Prospective Rather Than Retrospective Union Minister Kiren Rijiju: The Waqf Amendment Bill Is Prospective Rather Than Retrospective sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 3, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for “making mockery” of anti-defection law Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote