Indian crypto exchange WazirX, which suffered a $234 million hack last July, says it’s getting ready to resume operations depending on a court decision expected on May. 13. The ruling will determine whether its restructuring plan and user compensation strategy can move forward. If the Singapore High Court approves, WazirX’s parent company, Zettai PTE Ltd, can restart the exchange and start compensating affected users within 10 business days.
WazirX was hit by a major security breach in mid-July 2024. The exchange lost around $234 million worth of crypto from one of its Safe Multisig wallets. The attack has since been linked to North Korean hackers. As a result, the platform had to temporarily stop all crypto and Indian rupee withdrawals to deal with the situation. WazirX said:
Zettai has completed all prior required steps, and the next key step is the sanction hearing, which the Singapore High Court has scheduled for May 13, 2025.
Indian supreme court rejects petition from WazirX hack victims
On Apr. 7, over 90% of the platform’s creditors voted to support a recovery plan after the hack. The plan includes issuing special recovery tokens, which the exchange will eventually buy back using its future profits. If things go as planned, users could recover about 75% to 80% of the funds they had in their accounts at the time of cyberattack.
WazirX has warned that if creditors don’t approve its proposed restructuring plan, repayments from the $235 million hack could be delayed until 2030. Singapore’s High Court gave Zettai approval to hold a creditors’ meeting. The aim is to discuss possible solutions for users and outline and a plan to bring the exchange back online by January. On Apr. 16, Indian Supreme Court issued a ruling rejecting a petition from 54 victims of a hack.
The petitioners had sought legal action against WazirX, its founder Shetty, Binance, and the custody provider Liminal. They also requested the court to conduct an audit of WazirX’s accounts. Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine Masih dismissed the petition, explaining that the court couldn’t make a decision on the case because it was crypto policy matter, an area outside the court’s authority.
