A Seychelles court ruling related to the delisted CHP token has placed KuCoin under new legal scrutiny.
summary
A Seychelles court has ordered KuCoin to compensate Swiss investors for over 21 million delisted CHP tokens. Investors claim that KuCoin has not paid the judgment or participated in related legal proceedings. The ruling rejected KuCoin’s argument that delisted tokens that have not been withdrawn have become abandoned property.
Swiss investors claim the exchange has not paid them more than $2 million in court-ordered incentives. The dispute centers around 21 million CHP tokens and a judgment issued by the Seychelles Supreme Court in December 2025.
Court ruling focuses on delisted CHP tokens
According to reports, the Seychelles Supreme Court ruled against KuCoin in December 2025. The lawsuit involved 21 million CHP tokens that remained on the platform after delisting. The court rejected the view that undrawn tokens automatically become abandoned property. Instead, the ruling treated the tokens as obligations to investors. The judgment ordered damages in excess of $2 million.
Investors claim KuCoin failed to comply with the ruling. Even now, six months after the verdict, the reward remains unpaid. The investor also claims that the exchange is not participating in related litigation. According to the complaint, KuCoin has not responded to requests regarding this matter. Public records cited in the report do not show any judgment payments.
The dispute has attracted attention because KuCoin is operated through an organization based in the Seychelles. The ruling came from the same jurisdiction where some of the exchanges maintain legal incorporation. The case is currently focused on whether the district court’s ruling can compel global cryptocurrency platforms to act. Legal enforcement remains a central issue in the ongoing conflict. Investors continue to seek recovery through available legal means.
Investors object to exchange treatment of delisted assets
CHP disputes stem from how exchanges treat delisted digital assets. Many trading platforms remove tokens when activity decreases or compliance concerns arise. Users often receive a revocation period before support ends. The Seychelles judgment addressed what happens after these deadlines have passed. The court determined that CHP’s assets held legal value.
According to reports, KuCoin claimed that the undrawn CHP tokens were abandoned after the delisting. The court did not accept that position. Instead, it linked assets to financial obligations owed by the exchange. This decision established a legal distinction between delisting and ownership. That interpretation formed the basis of the compensation order.
The lawsuit also focuses on exchange service terms. Many platforms include provisions covering inactive or unsupported assets. However, legal treatment may vary by jurisdiction. The CHP judgment addressed one specific dispute under Seychelles law. Other courts may also evaluate similar issues under different legal frameworks.
Enforcement questions remain unresolved
Investors now face the challenge of enforcing the judgment. According to the report, Seychelles’ courts have limited influence over globally dispersed assets. Recovery efforts may require identifying assets associated with exchanges located in other jurisdictions.
Enforcement proceedings may depend on local recognition of foreign judgments. These steps may take time and require additional legal proceedings. The CFTC and other regulators have recently increased their focus on cross-border crypto platforms.
At the same time, legal disputes continue to arise in multiple jurisdictions. The KuCoin issue adds new legal challenges regarding exchange accountability. Investors claim the judgment remains unpaid. KuCoin has not publicly addressed the allegations contained in the report.
