Bithumb Wins Crypto Investor’s Hack Case

Bithumb, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in South Korea,  has just won the infamous investor’s hack case after a South Korean court ruled in favor of it. The decision was made following an incident involving a user getting hacked. The worth reportedly reached $355,000. This forced the individual to sue the company over the significant loss.

The Hacking Incident

As far as the court documents are concerned, they reveal that a Bithumb user – who is only known by the surname that goes Park – reportedly placed about 478 million Korean won in his account with Bithumb. The deposit took place on November last year. But within a matter of hours, someone who is believed to be a hacker logged into this account and exchanged the money for the crypto called Ethereum.

Over the same day, Park alleged, Bithumb allowed the digital currency to be transacted out of his wallet – and that it even happened for at least four times. Due to the alleged incident, the only funds left when he returned to his account were cryptos worth 121 won (11 U.S. cents) and less than a dollar in cash.

Park tried to reclaim his funds, something that he did by taking took Bithumb’s parent firm called BTCKorea.com. As a result, he decided to bring the issue to a civil court in the Korean capital Seoul.

He was quoted as saying:

“Considering that Bithumb offers similar services to the financial sector, it requires a high degree of security measures required by financial institutions.”

Breach Of Personal Information

Park also pointed to a major breach of personal information that occurred in the company sometime in April of the same year. He claimed that this opened up the possibility of leaking of his own account details, and argued the exchange did not live up to its expected fiduciary obligations to act in the best interests of customers.

In its arguments to court, Bithumb argued: “According to the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Bithumb is not responsible for compensation because it is not a financial company, an electronic financier, or an electronic financial assistant.”

The firm also added, “Since we have strengthened our security policy since the leak of personal information, we have fulfilled our obligation to be a diligent manager.”

Interestingly, the judge in charge of the case ultimately backed the company, agreeing that the Electronic Financial Transactions Act does not apply to the exchange. The official also went to add that digital asset s “mainly used as speculative means, so it cannot be regarded as an electronic means of payment.”