<h2>&quot;Seizing&quot;</h2>
<h3>Freezing is not seizing.</h3>
<p>Seizing would mean transferring ownership of assets to the court.</p>
<p>Freezing means the subjects of the orders are not able to use or dispose of assets of theirs that are under the jurisdiction of U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky. The final disposition of the assets depends on the outcome of a court case or on the expiry of the order.</p>
<h2>&quot;Government&quot;</h2>
<p>Whether you consider this particular court &quot;government&quot; probably depends on where you live.</p>
<h2>&quot;Anonymous&quot;</h2>
<p>Bitconnect is not exactly anonymous, there are names of individuals in the <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10948031/officers" rel="nofollow noreferrer">company registration</a> that is associated with the business. Whether those are real names is not guaranteed. There is also a named individual in the <a href="https://dockets.justia.com/docket/kentucky/kywdce/3:2018cv00058/105621" rel="nofollow noreferrer">class action</a></p>
<h2>Effectiveness</h2>
<p>I doubt any of the business' assets are currently held within the jurisdiction of this particular court.</p>
<p>Compliance with the order probably depends wholly on cooperation by the people involved in bitconnect. So far as I know, the court has no way to apply any sanctions if they do not cooperate.</p>
<hr />
<p><a href="http://internationalbusinesslawadvisor.com/worldwide-freezing-orders-enforceable-worldwide/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://internationalbusinesslawadvisor.com/worldwide-freezing-orders-enforceable-worldwide/</a></p>
<blockquote>
<h2>Is a WFO Enforceable Outside of the Country Where it was Issued?</h2>
<p>The short answer is no. The WFO applicant must register for enforcement in the foreign country where enforcement is sought.  At such time as the foreign court approves the WFO for local application, enforcement would be proper.</p>
<h2>The U.S. Perspective</h2>
<p>From the U.S. perspective, courts have been hostile to the kind of relief available in foreign courts with a WFO. While U.S. courts will, as a matter of course, issue a freezing order in support of a U.S. proceeding, they have repeatedly expressed extreme reluctance to do so in support of a non-U.S. proceeding as a matter of course</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&quot;Do as you would be done by&quot; applies?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-19T20:42:42.383Z
If they're not anonymous then the government can just jail them right?
user4951
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-19T22:26:50.540Z
The judical branch can't *just* jail people. It has to first succeed at some intermediate steps.
RedGrittyBrick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-01T19:01:28.760Z
So basically the court is powerless. Are there any website source that clearly shows that.
user4951
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-01T22:33:52.957Z
See addendum above
RedGrittyBrick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-04T06:56:12.087Z
I think the gist of my question comes from the idea that we do not even know who is behind BCC and hence there is absolutely nothing governments all over the world can do even if they are united against BCC. I think that should be a different question. You seem to address legal aspects. However, it seems that no matter what the law is, there isn't much that can be done
user4951
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-18T16:31:05.710Z
2018-07-01T22:32:50.353Z
2020-06-16T11:10:03.350Z
RedGrittyBrick
<p><a href="https://www.coindesk.com/us-court-freezes-bitconnect-assets-as-lawsuits-mount/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.coindesk.com/us-court-freezes-bitconnect-assets-as-lawsuits-mount/</a></p>

<p>This says yes.</p>

<p>However, bitconnect is anonymous.</p>

<p>So how can it be?</p>

<p>Any sources of the success and failure of seizing</p>

<fraud>
Does government really seize Bitconnect assets?
user4951
# Does government really seize Bitconnect assets?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-06-18)

<https://www.coindesk.com/us-court-freezes-bitconnect-assets-as-lawsuits-mount/>

This says yes.

However, bitconnect is anonymous.

So how can it be?

Any sources of the success and failure of seizing

**Tags:** fraud


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-06-18. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

## "Seizing"

### Freezing is not seizing.

Seizing would mean transferring ownership of assets to the court.

Freezing means the subjects of the orders are not able to use or dispose of assets of theirs that are under the jurisdiction of U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky. The final disposition of the assets depends on the outcome of a court case or on the expiry of the order.

## "Government"

Whether you consider this particular court "government" probably depends on where you live.

## "Anonymous"

Bitconnect is not exactly anonymous, there are names of individuals in the [company registration](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10948031/officers) that is associated with the business. Whether those are real names is not guaranteed. There is also a named individual in the [class action](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/kentucky/kywdce/3:2018cv00058/105621)

## Effectiveness

I doubt any of the business' assets are currently held within the jurisdiction of this particular court.

Compliance with the order probably depends wholly on cooperation by the people involved in bitconnect. So far as I know, the court has no way to apply any sanctions if they do not cooperate.

---

<http://internationalbusinesslawadvisor.com/worldwide-freezing-orders-enforceable-worldwide/>

> ## Is a WFO Enforceable Outside of the Country Where it was Issued?
>
> The short answer is no. The WFO applicant must register for enforcement in the foreign country where enforcement is sought. At such time as the foreign court approves the WFO for local application, enforcement would be proper.
>
> ## The U.S. Perspective
>
> From the U.S. perspective, courts have been hostile to the kind of relief available in foreign courts with a WFO. While U.S. courts will, as a matter of course, issue a freezing order in support of a U.S. proceeding, they have repeatedly expressed extreme reluctance to do so in support of a non-U.S. proceeding as a matter of course

"Do as you would be done by" applies?

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: If they're not anonymous then the government can just jail them right?  
> **username_1**: The judical branch can't *just* jail people. It has to first succeed at some intermediate steps.  
> **username_0**: So basically the court is powerless. Are there any website source that clearly shows that.  
> **username_1**: See addendum above  
> **username_0**: I think the gist of my question comes from the idea that we do not even know who is behind BCC and hence there is absolutely nothing governments all over the world can do even if they are united against BCC. I think that should be a different question. You seem to address legal aspects. However, it seems that no matter what the law is, there isn't much that can be done  

---

