When Celsius Network fell into bankruptcy in 2022, the main headlines focused on billions of dollars in the TV Empire once. But under chaos, one case appeared – prepared in the list – as the most dependent legal battle to arise from the era of encryption bankruptcy. It is not a collective lawsuit or federal indictment. It is one of the professionals: Jason Volker, from California, stands alone against a system that may have to change because of it.
Voelker case is not related to technology. It is related to the first principles. It raises constitutional questions about judicial integrity, taking without compensation, and legal procedures due to creditors in the post -emphasis. More than that, it reveals the deep incompatibility between the principle of traditional bankruptcy and advanced legal architecture for the custody of digital assets.
This is not just a story about 17.61163 Bitcoin. This is the front line of the legal transformation. If Voelker succeeds, the effects of it will be seismic. If he fails, a precedent that allows bankruptcy real estate may be appointed to defeat her enforcement by distorting compliance – and losing the truth before anyone can correct the record.
Al -Sharara: a distortion in the heart
In 2024, Voelker made a suggestion for a vacation to bring a discount against CELSIUS. In that complaint, he claimed that 17 Bitcoin was detained in the possibility of the Wyoming era of the nursery laws in Wyoming – tapes that were never owned by property, and therefore not to be reorganized.
CELSIUS Manager did not compete for the prosecution. They did not argue that Bitcoin 17 were part of the estate. Instead, claim that Voelker was already receiving 105 % of his demand according to the confirmed plan and that more relief was banned.
The bankruptcy court relied on this confirmation. On May 8, 2024, it rejected Voelker’s request for the hypothesis that the 17 bitcoin was already paid, and he was receiving more than he asked.
But this was not true. He did not receive a single currency. The plan official knew that when they said otherwise.
Doctrinal bomb: the judicial body meets
This moment is greater than Estoppel. It comes to whether the bankruptcy court, which relied on a realistic confirmation to deny the arrival of the litigants to justice, can definitely allow himself to calmly abandon – which leads to the creditor’s eradication without asylum, without treatment, and without rights.
It comes to whether the reorganized real estate can be promised to pay to close the court door – then move away, free of commitment, when dust stabilizes.
This is the toilets. Unprecedentedly in the bankruptcy case was clearly involved in the doctrine of the judiciary in the context of digital assets. He unprecedentedly for a plan, an official argued that the creditor is receiving an excessive wage in order to defeat a lawsuit, then refused to issue the payment and stop silently while the confiscation order is waving.
Why will this case change the law
If Voelker’s request is granted, the law will be transformed. If this is rejected, the issue will become a constitutional bomb when appeals. In both cases, the influence will be felt through bankruptcy courts and digital guardians at the country level.
• The state custody laws will be raised: The courts will have to calculate the sponsorship laws such as Wyoming, which deliberately places digital assets outside the bankruptcy real estate. Voelker will force this confrontation.
• The judicial body will gain constitutional dimensions: the consequences of the wrong or strategic representation of procedural bankruptcy courts are no longer. They will become constitutional violations.
• The confiscation orders will face the national audit: If the court allows the confiscation of the assets that it had previously admitted to being due, it will create a problem in the seizure under the fifth amendment. The separation line between abandoned property and confiscated property will be tested as it has not happened before.
• The post -confirmation rights will be redefined: Once the plan is confirmed, the courts usually wash their hands from the disputed matters. The Voelker case shows the reason not only this assumption, but it is dangerous.
The watch and the curtain
The deadline for confiscation is March 31, 2025. On that day, any non -required property is due to be returned to the reorganized entity, or the Ionian digital, or is used to pay administrative professionals. Bitcoin’s Voelker will disappear. Its appeal will be discussed. The May 8 ranking, which has never been applied, will become judicial remains – designed in the text but displayed in practice.
Voelker submitted a request to the emergency asking the court to implement its ruling – or at least stay in confiscation for a long time to litigate. The court ordered the responses. The session will decide whether the bankruptcy courts remain the courts of rights, or whether the final plan can exceed the basic fairness.
The first great test for the safety of encryption bankruptcy
This issue will be studied for years. This is the first moment in which the rapprochement of custody in Blockchain, Federal Banking Law and Constitutional Protection in the same courtroom.
Jason Volker did not plan to make history. But through permanent packages and forcing the court to reconcile her words with her actions, the plaintiff became the record at a legal turning point.
Whether this ends with his victory in the bankruptcy court or a pioneering decision on appeal, there is one clear thing: the old rules are no longer enough. A new era of insolvency law began digital assets.
It begins here.
Art Stephen
adxpro.online