A Seychelles court has ruled against KuCoin’s attempt to write off unwithdrawn tokens as “abandoned.” In Cointelegraph’s report, the decision comes from a dispute tied to a delisted token, and it ended with an award of more than $2 million to a Swiss investor.
The key point is what the court rejected. According to Cointelegraph, the court said KuCoin cannot treat unwithdrawn tokens as abandoned. That matters because exchanges often rely on practical delisting mechanics. But “abandoned” is a legal story, not a technical one.
Court rejects the “abandoned” argument
Cointelegraph reports that the Seychelles court sided with the investor’s position that the tokens were not abandoned simply because the exchange delisted the asset.
In the same account, the court awarded the investor over $2 million. The award is tied to the delisted-token dispute, and it signals that courts may scrutinize how exchanges frame end-user assets after listing changes.
For operators, the operational risk is obvious. Delisting workflows and asset-credit processes may still collide with legal obligations if users claim they were left with unrecoverable balances.
Investor says KuCoin hasn’t paid and will sue again
Cointelegraph says the investor claims KuCoin has not paid the award yet. The investor also plans to sue again.
This sequence tells you how these cases usually play out. Even after a court decision, enforcement becomes the fight. “Paid” is not the same thing as “won.” The investor’s plan to sue again suggests they believe there is still a path to compel payment.
What this signals for exchange delistings
Delistings are routine. User balances and withdrawal access are not always handled the same way across venues, and Cointelegraph’s report highlights how that inconsistency can end up as litigation.
The Seychelles ruling, as described by Cointelegraph, puts pressure on the “abandoned” narrative. If a court treats unwithdrawn tokens as something the exchange must account for, exchanges may need cleaner redemption plans, clearer deadlines, and better proof of user notice.
That is not a guarantee. Cointelegraph’s report only confirms the court’s stance on abandonment in this case and the investor’s claim about non-payment. But it does underline a real constraint: courts can challenge exchange justifications even when delisting is already done.
The next steps likely hinge on enforcement
Cointelegraph frames the dispute around an award and the investor’s accusation that KuCoin still hasn’t paid. The practical question now is enforcement.
If the investor returns to court again, the legal focus could shift from the underlying token claim to payment compliance, timelines, and jurisdictional reach. Cointelegraph does not detail those mechanics in the excerpt provided, so the safest read is that the payment issue is still live.
For users holding assets at the time of a delisting, this is also a reminder that “not supported anymore” can turn into “not resolved.” The court’s rejection of the abandoned framing suggests that courts may look beyond delisting notices and into how exchanges handled withdrawals and user expectations.
No investment advice. Tokens and exchange balances carry risk, and legal outcomes are fact-specific.