South Korean financial regulators accused Delio of fraud and embezzlement and seized its assets in July earlier this year.
South Korean Bitcoin (BTC) lender Delio is reportedly preparing for an administrative lawsuit against regulators for the wrong interpretation of the law, leading to an investigation and a hefty fine against the crypto lending firm.
Delio said the allegations of fraud and embezzlement levied by the Financial Service Committee (FSC) are baseless, according to a report published in a local daily. The crypto lender claimed that the regulator implied the law unreasonably in a situation where there were no clear regulations for virtual asset deposit and management products.
The report revealed that the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) recommended the dismissal of Delio CEO Jeong Sang-ho through a sanctions announcement on Sept. 1. Delio claimed that this was a clear indication that the financial authorities were putting pressure on Delio to close down the business rather than giving it a chance to revive. The FIU also imposed a three-month business suspension on Delio and a fine of 1.83 billion Korean won ($1.34 million).
Sang-ho said that these FIU sanctions leave a lot of room for unreasonable legal interpretation and arbitrary application, and such behavior by financial authorities could kill the domestic virtual asset industry.
The major issue of conflict remains the interpretation of the existing laws, around whether a lending company that lends cash using virtual assets as collateral is considered a virtual asset business operator and whether the act of imposing a lock-up constitutes “storage” of virtual assets under the Special Financial Services Act.
Delio argued that it is unclear whether virtual asset deposits and management products are considered financial products under the current law. One of the lawyers for the firm noted that there are no provisions for virtual asset-related laws and regulations regarding the virtual asset management business.
The lawyer said that the FIU arbitrarily interpreted virtual asset deposits and management products as financial investment products and sanctioned them, which is the wrong interpretation of the law.