+0.36% Bitcoin (BTC) 21809.33 EUR
+0.75% Ethereum (ETH) 1566.05 EUR
+2.31% Litecoin (LTC) 94.09 EUR
+0.26% B-Cash (BCH) 127.16 EUR
+0.47% Ethereum (ETH) 0.0725887 BTC
+1.96% Litecoin (LTC) 0.00436724 BTC
0.00% B-Cash (BCH) 0.0058984 BTC
+0.62% Bitcoin (BTC) 23432.5252 USDC
-0.10% USD Coin (USDC) 0.94 EUR
+0.47% Bitcoin (BTC) 23399.781 USDT
-0.12% Tether (USDT) 0.94 EUR
+1.88% Chainlink (LINK) 6.7 EUR
+1.46% Chainlink (LINK) 0.00031043 BTC
-0.59% Dogecoin (DOGE) 0.08 EUR
-1.23% Dogecoin (DOGE) 0.000004 BTC
+0.40% Uniswap (UNI) 6.48 EUR
+0.13% Uniswap (UNI) 0.00030118 BTC
-0.37% Cardano (ADA) 0.37 EUR
-0.57% Cardano (ADA) 0.00001715 BTC
+1.82% Tron (TRX) 0.06 EUR
+1.42% Tron (TRX) 0.00000284 BTC
-1.47% Shiba Inu (SHIB) 0.00001334 EUR
+3.40% Zcash (ZEC) 43.51 EUR
+3.09% Zcash (ZEC) 0.00202 BTC
+0.80% Basic Attention Token (BAT) 0.00001256 BTC
+10.35% TradeFlow (TFLOW) 0.13085025 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