The article was updated on 22 November, 2019 by Amicus.
04 June, 2019 | AtoZ Markets - The recent Israeli Supreme Court decision regarding Bits of Gold seemingly creates a precedent for Israeli crypto companies. That was for the legitimate use of traditional banking services in the region.
It is also worth to mention that just a month ago, the crypto exchange announced its plans on expansion into the international market. The company also mentioned about launching a service allowing other international applications and exchanges to trade cryptos. But it was relying on the Bits of Gold system to manage compliance, banking, and liquidity infrastructures.
In March 2019, the Israeli Securities Authority issued its final recommendations on cryptocurrency rules. That was for how to maintain a cryptocurrency space in the country. Including in the report, the idea of creating a standard sandbox was voiced.
About Leumi Bank and Bits of Gold interaction in a brief
Notable, via Supreme Court decision Leumi Bank cannot block cryptocurrency exchange and its account. It reportedly maintains its position against the deal with the Bits of Gold.
The litigations between Israel's oldest banking corporation Leumi and one of Israel’s most significant Bitcoin brokers Bits of Gold started in 2017.
Back then, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in favor of Leumi in a separate case against Bits of Gold. The bank was able to achieve the restriction of the exchange’s account. Because bitcoin operations (BTC) cannot satisfy the country's requirements to combat money laundering (AML) activities.
Nevertheless, in 2018, Anat Baron is a judge of the Israeli Supreme Court. He issued a court order temporarily prohibiting Leumi from blocking the Bits of Gold bank account. Judge Baron noted that there is no reason to continue to prevent the Bits of Gold account. Because, during the five years of the exchange operations, the exchange detected no violations in the AML area.
Judge Baron said that there is no reason to continue blocking the Bits of Gold account. Because, during the five years of the operations, there were no violations on the part of the AML from the crypto exchange side. However, he noted then that the decision to issue a court order did not prevent the bank from carefully studying the behavior of the exchange or following its risk management policy.
Think we missed something? Let us know in the comments section below.