Mystery Unfolded: Did Do Kwon Know Terra Would Collapse?

The post Mystery Unfolded: Did Do Kwon Know Terra Would Collapse? appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

South Korean prosecutors have revealed that Hyung Do Kwon, the disgraced crypto entrepreneur behind the $60 billion Terra token collapse, transferred $7 million to Kim & Chang law firm shortly before the implosion of TerraUSD and Luna tokens. This recent discovery suggests that Kwon may have foreseen the legal troubles that would arise from the failure of his cryptocurrency project.

Funds Transferred Before Terra Token Collapse

According to a KBS News report, Kwon transferred funds to the law firm just before the massive collapse of the tokens he developed. Seoul’s prosecutor’s office confirmed the accuracy of the report, which highlights the timing of the payment to the law firm as a possible indicator that Kwon may have predicted the legal difficulties his cryptocurrency project was facing.

Law Firm Claims Legality of Fees Received

When questioned about the report, Kim & Chang stated that they could not provide specific information on individual cases but affirmed that they had conducted their legal advisory services as usual and had lawfully received fees for the services provided.

Kwon’s Legal Troubles: New Information Surfaces!

Kwon, arrested in Montenegro last month, is facing fraud allegations from US prosecutors and additional charges in South Korea for violating capital-markets law. He was detained alongside Terraform Labs’ ex-CFO, Han Chang-joon, and is expected to be extradited to either the US or South Korea soon.

South Korean prosecutors hope that the discovery of Kwon’s transfer to the law firm will contribute to the ongoing fraud case against him. It has been almost a year since Terra’s collapse, which occurred in May 2022.

Also Read: Terra 2.0 (LUNA) Price Prediction – 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 – 2030

Kim & Chang Law Firm Reacts to Report

When questioned about the report, Kim & Chang stated that they could not provide specific information on individual cases but affirmed that they had conducted their legal advisory services as usual and had lawfully received fees for the services provided.