US Judge Halts Arkansas Crackdown On Crypto Mining Firm Over Foreign Ownership Case

by

As a seasoned legal analyst with extensive experience in cross-cultural law matters, I find this situation intriguing and concerning. The temporary halt on Arkansas State’s actions against Jones Eagle LLC, a crypto mining firm owned by an individual of Chinese descent, raises questions about the application of Act 636 of 2023 and Act 174 of 2024.

A US Federal Judge in Little Rock has temporarily halted Arkansas State’s efforts to shut down a crypto mining firm owned by a Chinese-born man. The ruling comes after the firm requested a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) claiming illegal discrimination.

US Federal Judge Grants Temporary Restraining Order

In response to the ongoing court case between Arkansas state authorities and cryptocurrency mining company Jones Eagle LLC, Chief US District Judge Kristine Baker issued a short-term block (temporary restraining order) on November 25, at the request of Jones Eagle’s legal team. The judge also granted a preliminary injunction, which is yet to be approved.

For a brief period, the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) prevented Arkansas officials from implementing enforcement actions on two pieces of legislation, namely Act 636 of 2023 and Act 174 of 2024. These laws aim at businesses and properties belonging to Chinese nationals. Act 636 specifically prohibits state property ownership by companies or individuals associated with the Chinese government and countries classified as adversaries of the United States.

Concurrently, Act 174 forbids ownership of interests connected to nations mentioned in Act 636 that are controlled by foreign parties. These regulations empower the agriculture department of the state to scrutinize suspect entities and order the Attorney General to take legal action against those found violating these provisions.

In December 2023, Arkansas Secretary of Agriculture Wes Ward sent a crypto mining company to Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin for review, as he suspected Jones Digital LLC (formerly known as Jones Eagle) had strong connections with China.

As a crypto investor, I’ve been closely following the recent news about the crypto company. It seems that the enforcement of Act 636 and Act 174 against our company appears to be rooted in the ethnicity of its proprietor, who is Chinese-American. The individual in question, Qimin “Jimmy” Chen, a native of China currently residing in New York, holds significant control over Jones Eagle through Eagle Asset Holdings Inc., which owns the majority stake in the mining firm.

On the other hand, court records show that Chen came to this country as a child and later became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

For a period of 14 days, the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) remains in effect. Following this, a court proceeding will take place to deliberate on the initial injunction appeal and potentially prolong the duration of the restraining order. Alex Jones, Chen’s lawyer, commented:

As a researcher, I’m confidently stating that the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and the preliminary injunction serve as protective measures for our client, allowing us ample time to meticulously build our case for the upcoming trial on the substance of the matter. In this trial, we will have the opportunity to comprehensively argue why the contested laws are deemed unconstitutional, representing an overreach of legislative authority.

Crypto Mining Company Prepares For Legal Battle

On November 13, the cryptocurrency mining company initiated a legal action against Arkansas, specifically officials Ward and Griffin, alleging that their actions infringed upon the protections granted by the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The lawsuit argues that the two laws violate the US Constitution by “denying due process, illegally discriminating against a person based on national origin, and depriving a person of just compensation for taking property.”

According to the affidavit accompanying the Temporary Restraining Order application, Chen asserts that he’s made efforts to collaborate with the state officials, yet has not received any favorable response.

According to the document, Chen handed over papers demonstrating that his company functions on rented property to the attorney general. Furthermore, it’s said that he aimed to discuss with the attorney general’s team about evidence of his American citizenship, yet his request was turned down.

In essence, Chen contends that the probe relied entirely on his Asian surname and asserts that he initiated the legal action due to his conviction that the Attorney General is ready to implement measures detrimental to his company, which would only exacerbate his professional standing and corporate image.

Read More

2024-11-28 13:42