Do Kwon Appeal of South Korea Extradition Rejected by Montenegro Court

CoinDeskPolicyPublished on 2024-03-19Last updated on 2024-03-20

Abstract

The U.S. is also seeking Kwon's extradition despite the Montenegrin court's decision to send him to South Korea.

  • A Montenegro appeals court won't overturn a previous ruling approving Do Kwon's extradition to South Korea to face criminal charges over the collapse of his crypto enterprise Terra.
  • The U.S. Department of Justice is also seeking Kwon's extradition and has said it will appeal Montenegro's decision to send him to South Korea.
  • Kwon's lawyer told CoinDesk that Wednesday's decision is final and added that there is no timeline for the extradition.

A Montenegro appeals court has rejected a bid from Terraform Labs founder Do Kwon to reverse a ruling approving his extradition to South Korea, an official notice from Wednesday shows.

Earlier this month, a high court in the Balkan nation ruled that Kwon can be extradited to South Korea to face criminal charges concerning the collapse of his multi-billion dollar crypto enterprise in May 2022. Wednesday's notice shows Kwon had unsuccessfully appealed that decision.

Do Kwon's attorney, Goran Rodic, told CoinDesk that the extradition was now final, and neither the U.S. nor Kwon could further appeal the decision. There is no timeline yet for when he might be extradited, he added. A U.S. Department of Justice spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Kwon, who was arrested in Montenegro and charged with carrying falsified official documents, successfully appealed previous high court decisions approving his extradition to the U.S. The appeals court rejected previous extradition decisions by the high court saying the extradition requests approved weren't legally sound.

"Deciding on the appeal of the defendant's counsel, the panel of the Court of Appeals assessed that the first-instance court had correctly established that the request of the Republic of South Korea arrived earlier in the order of arrival compared to the request of the USA, so it correctly assessed this and other criteria," Wednesday's notice said.

The U.S. Department of Justice has said that it will continue to seek Kwon's extradition to the U.S.

Amitoj Singh contributed reporting.

Edited by Nikhilesh De.

Related Reads

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit1h ago

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit1h ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手1h ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手1h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit3h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片