Recently, an interesting case has emerged in the world of on-chain analysis. It’s news that a U.S. law firm is repeatedly filing claims for the seizure and freezing of crypto assets based on past rulings related to North Korea.

Specifically, this firm is using an old ruling from 2009 as leverage to request the court to freeze funds related to the 2000 abduction incident. Amid a series of hacking incidents by Lazarus Group, they are attempting to assert priority rights by freezing related assets.

ZachXBT pointed out an intriguing aspect. This law firm has repeatedly reused on-chain tracking data publicly revealed in incidents involving Harmony and the Bybit app to claim priority in recovering frozen assets. In other words, they are reusing the tracking results of victims from the Bybit hacking incident as entirely different legal grounds.

But here’s the problem. If this trend continues, it could delay or hinder the process of recovering assets from actual hacking victims. Victims of hacking incidents on platforms like Bybit should be prioritized for compensation, but legal strategies based on old rulings are obstructing that process.

While on-chain analysis offers great transparency, it’s a bit complicated when its results are used as legal weapons for different purposes. When it comes to seizure and freezing of crypto assets, these unexpected side effects can arise.