+0.22% Bitcoin (BTC) 19903.76 EUR
-0.41% Ethereum (ETH) 1371.24 EUR
-0.98% Litecoin (LTC) 55.68 EUR
-0.75% B-Cash (BCH) 120.61 EUR
-0.57% Ethereum (ETH) 0.0696799 BTC
-1.48% Litecoin (LTC) 0.00282194 BTC
-0.98% B-Cash (BCH) 0.0061206 BTC
+0.13% Bitcoin (BTC) 19265.0632 USDC
+0.33% USD Coin (USDC) 1.03 EUR
0.00% Bitcoin (BTC) 19255.751 USDT
+0.31% Tether (USDT) 1.03 EUR
-3.02% Chainlink (LINK) 8.01 EUR
-3.47% Chainlink (LINK) 0.00040649 BTC
-4.35% Dogecoin (DOGE) 0.06 EUR
-3.85% Dogecoin (DOGE) 0.00000324 BTC
-3.04% Uniswap (UNI) 5.93 EUR
-3.32% Uniswap (UNI) 0.00030219 BTC
-3.29% Cardano (ADA) 0.46 EUR
-3.49% Cardano (ADA) 0.00002347 BTC
-0.77% Tron (TRX) 0.06 EUR
-1.25% Tron (TRX) 0.00000314 BTC
-3.85% Shiba Inu (SHIB) 0.00001148 EUR
+2.50% Zcash (ZEC) 59.92 EUR
+3.06% Zcash (ZEC) 0.0030603 BTC
-2.32% Basic Attention Token (BAT) 0.00001599 BTC
+1.91% TradeFlow (TFLOW) 0.05239979 BUSD

Bosnian court sides with Bitcoin miner in frozen bank account case


Italy’s second-largest bank UniCredit and the Bitcoin (BTC) mining farm Bitminer Factory have faced each other in the Bosnian city Banja Luka court, which decided that the bank improperly closed the company’s account and must compensate €131 million (about $144 million) to the plaintiff.


As reported in La Repubblica on Monday, the court of Banja Luka held that a Bosnian branch of UniCredit didn’t have a legitimate reason to freeze the operations of Bitminer Factory Gradiska LLC’s account. The Bitminer Factory estimated its losses at €131 million, asserting that the closure of its accounts had “hindered its initial coin offering (ICO) in relation to a startup project in the cryptocurrency mining sector with renewable energy in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” The court accepted that number.


In its defense, UniCredit cited an “inability to do business with digital currency suppliers and exchange platforms.” However, according to the court’s decision, this claim is not confirmed by the bank’s written policies.


UniCredit has already filed an appeal, dubbing the allegations as unfounded:


“It is not final, nor binding, nor enforceable. Ucbl’s eventual liability will only be determined upon the final outcome of all available procedural remedies and, in any event, not before the filing of a final and binding judgment by the court of appeal.”


The previous controversy regarding digital assets happened In January 2022, when UniCredit had to officially refute its own tweet, stating that it did not inhibit its customers from crypto investments or have any intention of closing their accounts for having invested in digital assets.


Source: Cointelegraph