The issue of TUSD reserve assets being stolen and ownership is absolutely the most perplexing matter for me recently; it took me several hours just to figure out what was being discussed.
Regarding the focus of the debate, a report was compiled through AI organizing publicly available information on the internet, which clarifies the matter:
❚ TUSD reserve assets have been misappropriated for court confirmation.
1/ The fact that the defendant stole the assets has been recognized by the court.
2/ The location of the stolen assets is unrelated to the ownership of TUSD.
3/ The misappropriated assets are not in Aria Fund but in Aria DMCC.
❚ Clarification on the so-called "normal investment allocation" mentioned by FDT.
Some relevant parties stated that the fund transfer falls under "normal investment allocation" and claimed it could yield higher interest.
The judgment shows that this assertion is inconsistent with the facts, mainly reflected in:
1/ The fund transfer violates the investment and custody agreement.
2/ The fund transfer behavior has illegal characteristics.
❚ The reason for Justin's appearance at the Dubai hearing.
Regarding the discussion of Justin's brief appearance in the March hearing, it can also be explained based on facts:
1/ Attendance stemmed from a reasonable concern about the progress of the case.
- Techteryx's legal advisor informed in March that a preliminary injunction had been obtained in the Dubai court.
- Justin, as a contributor to the TUSD rescue fund, has reasonable grounds to be concerned about the progress of the case and to understand the latest developments regarding asset freezing and judicial judgments.
❚ Summary
Based on the judgment and various publicly available information, the core focus of this case is:
- The fact of asset theft is undeniable;
- Funds were misappropriated to Aria DMCC;
- The misappropriation violates the investment and custody agreement and is recognized as having illegal characteristics;
- Justin's appearance at the hearing was a reasonable concern rather than a principal action in the case.
In the midst of a large volume of narratives and information flow, the above points are the currently confirmable objective content from the formal judgment document.
