According to @iampaulgrewal, SDNY has not been responsive to the basic point that custodial and non-custodial wallets are not the same. Source: @iampaulgrewal on X, Aug 14, 2025, https://twitter.com/iampaulgrewal/status/1955786426693673463 He underscores this wallet distinction in the SDNY context, signaling an active dispute over wallet classification. Source: @iampaulgrewal on X, Aug 14, 2025, https://twitter.com/iampaulgrewal/status/1955786426693673463 Traders tracking US crypto legal developments should note this SDNY-focused wallet classification debate as a regulatory signal. Source: @iampaulgrewal on X, Aug 14, 2025, https://twitter.com/iampaulgrewal/status/1955786426693673463

According to @iampaulgrewal, recent actions in a Southern District of New York (SDNY) courtroom have raised concerns for crypto traders after a federal prosecutor was reported to have elicited false testimony suggesting that victim funds were transferred to Coinbase (COIN). Additionally, the disclosure that potential charges are being considered against a third-party investor could increase legal uncertainty for major crypto exchanges and their stakeholders. Market participants should closely monitor the evolving legal landscape, as regulatory and legal developments may impact COIN's trading activity and overall crypto market sentiment (source: @iampaulgrewal).

According to Jake Chervinsky, the DOJ clarified in an April 7 memo that it is not a digital assets regulator, which should have influenced the Roman Storm case. However, the Southern District of New York has not aligned with this stance, continuing legal actions. This situation highlights ongoing regulatory challenges in the crypto market, potentially affecting trading sentiment and compliance strategies.

According to PeckShieldAlert, the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and Homeland Security Investigations San Diego (@HSISanDiego) have seized approximately $31 million in cryptocurrencies. This seizure is linked to the April 2021 hack of Uranium Finance on the BNB Chain, which originally resulted in a $50 million loss. This development highlights ongoing recovery efforts in the cryptocurrency sector and could impact the trading dynamics of assets connected to Uranium Finance.