{"id":9679,"date":"2022-03-29T11:56:25","date_gmt":"2022-03-29T11:56:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nftandcrypto-news.com\/crypto\/bosnian-court-sides-with-bitcoin-miner-in-frozen-bank-account-case\/"},"modified":"2022-03-29T11:56:27","modified_gmt":"2022-03-29T11:56:27","slug":"bosnian-court-sides-with-bitcoin-miner-in-frozen-bank-account-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nftandcrypto-news.com\/crypto\/bosnian-court-sides-with-bitcoin-miner-in-frozen-bank-account-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Bosnian court sides with Bitcoin miner in frozen bank account case"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

Italy\u2019s 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\u2019s account and must compensate \u20ac131 million (about $144 million) to the plaintiff.\u00a0<\/p>\n

As reported in La Repubblica on March 27, the court of Banja Luka held that a Bosnian branch of UniCredit didn\u2019t have legitimate reasons to freeze the operations of Bitminer Factory Gradiska LLC\u2019s account. The Bitminer Factory estimated its losses at \u20ac131 million, asserting that the closure of its accounts had \u201chindered its initial coin offering (ICO) in relation to a startup project in the cryptocurrency mining sector with renewable energy in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\u201d The court accepted that number. <\/p>\n

In its defense, UniCredit cited an \u201cinability to do business with digital currency suppliers and exchange platforms.\u201d However, according to the court\u2019s decision, this claim didn\u2019t find any confirmation in the bank\u2019s written policies. <\/p>\n

Related: <\/em><\/strong>Ukraine\u2019s largest savings bank halts Bitcoin buys with hryvnia<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

UniCredit has already filed an appeal, dubbing the allegations as unfounded: <\/p>\n

\u201cIt is not final, nor binding, nor enforceable. Ucbl\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

The previous controversy in its relations to the digital assets has happened In January 2022, when UniCredit had to officially refute<\/a> its own tweet, stating that the did not inhibit its customers from crypto investments or have any intention of closing their accounts on that matter. <\/p>\n