- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Seeks Government And RBI’s Response On Petition Against WazirX
Delhi High Court Seeks Government And RBI’s Response On Petition Against WazirX
The appeal sought the creation of a Special Investigation Team to examine the alleged cyberattacks on the trading platform
The Delhi High Court has sought responses from the government, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on a petition for an investigation into WazirX's security and operations.
The petition stressed a financial crisis, allegedly affecting users of the BitBNS cryptocurrency exchange, which came under scrutiny. Users had issues with frozen withdrawals and sought stricter regulations.
Last year, India's largest cryptocurrency exchange, WazirX suffered a $235 million hack attributed to North Korea's Lazarus Group. Recently, Japan, South Korea and the US issued a joint statement, blaming North Korea and Lazarus for the hack.
The bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta remarked that if the breach was due to its own fault, WazirX would be held financially responsible.
The petition raised concerns about the platform's security infrastructure and the ability to safeguard users from potential cyber threats. It highlighted broader operational issues associated with the company, including BitBNS.
The judge emphasized that if the attack came from the dark web, the platform could not simply apologize and avoid accountability.
He said, "If someone from the dark web breached your platform, you cannot say sorry. I am curious to know if the government will wash its hands off in its affidavit.”
Meanwhile, the RBI informed the court that it would not regulate platforms like WazirX, a move, which the court found ‘unfortunate’.
The bench questioned, "You may turn a blind eye to crypto; it could threaten the financial system of the country. What are you doing to regulate that?"