Even if there is no court order if the address has received funds from hacked wallets and addresses, they need to act on it. They know that for every rule, there is an exception, and they have all the means on their own platform to do so, so that the hackers won't have a good meal with someone else's hard-earned money. Hoping that they'll take some action towards these hacked funds won't usually be successful, as it will take time for a court order to be issued and it will only happen if someone files for it. Following standard procedures by requesting Court order is the most appropriate step for every centralized institution although some of them tend to act outside of that standard procedures by acting fast and in the end the results is not often in the negative, even banks don't block accounts like that even if the account is found to have received funds for scammer hack into another person account, all their can do I to block your account, but need a court order block the recipient account, circle stands on court order before 33win Ay freezing is just following legal procedures. If the others can do an instant delay or blockage or banning of the wallet, this is the choice they can do. Legally, they're right in it but the dirty money would probably have moved already before the court order is released which doesn't help the victims after all. As for the banks, AFAIK they have the power to put such transactions a flag if it's risky even without a court order.
Even if there is no court order if the address has received funds from hacked wallets and addresses, they need to act on it. They know that for every rule, there is an exception, and they have all the means on their own platform to do so, so that the hackers won't have a good meal with someone else's hard-earned money. Hoping that they'll take some action towards these hacked funds won't usually be successful, as it will take time for a court order to be issued and it will only happen if someone files for it. Following standard procedures by requesting Court order is the most appropriate step for every centralized institution although some of them tend to act outside of that standard procedures by acting fast and in the end the results is not often in the negative, even banks don't block accounts like that even if the account is found to have received funds for scammer hack into another person account, all their can do I to block your account, but need a court order block the recipient account, circle stands on court order before 33win Ay freezing is just following legal procedures. If the others can do an instant delay or blockage or banning of the wallet, this is the choice they can do. Legally, they're right in it but the dirty money would probably have moved already before the court order is released which doesn't help the victims after all. As for the banks, AFAIK they have the power to put such transactions a flag if it's risky even without a court order.

Even if there is no court order if the address has received funds from hacked wallets and addresses, they need to act on it. They know that for every rule, there is an exception, and they have all the means on their own platform to do so, so that the hackers won't have a good meal with someone else's hard-earned money. Hoping that they'll take some action towards these hacked funds won't usually be successful, as it will take time for a court order to be issued and it will only happen if someone files for it. Following standard procedures by requesting Court order is the most appropriate step for every centralized institution although some of them tend to act outside of that standard procedures by acting fast and in the end the results is not often in the negative, even banks don't block accounts like that even if the account is found to have received funds for scammer hack into another person account, all their can do I to block your account, but need a court order block the recipient account, circle stands on court order before 33win Ay freezing is just following legal procedures. If the others can do an instant delay or blockage or banning of the wallet, this is the choice they can do. Legally, they're right in it but the dirty money would probably have moved already before the court order is released which doesn't help the victims after all. As for the banks, AFAIK they have the power to put such transactions a flag if it's risky even without a court order.

Even if there is no court order if the address has received funds from hacked wallets and addresses, they need to act on it. They know that for every rule, there is an exception, and they have all the means on their own platform to do so, so that the hackers won't have a good meal with someone else's hard-earned money. Hoping that they'll take some action towards these hacked funds won't usually be successful, as it will take time for a court order to be issued and it will only happen if someone files for it. Following standard procedures by requesting Court order is the most appropriate step for every centralized institution although some of them tend to act outside of that standard procedures by acting fast and in the end the results is not often in the negative, even banks don't block accounts like that even if the account is found to have received funds for scammer hack into another person account, all their can do I to block your account, but need a court order block the recipient account, circle stands on court order before 33win Ay freezing is just following legal procedures. If the others can do an instant delay or blockage or banning of the wallet, this is the choice they can do. Legally, they're right in it but the dirty money would probably have moved already before the court order is released which doesn't help the victims after all. As for the banks, AFAIK they have the power to put such transactions a flag if it's risky even without a court order.