Victims of North Korea-linked terrorism are trying to seize about 30,766 ETH, worth around 71 million dollars, frozen on Arbitrum after the Kelp DAO exploit. They hold nearly 877 million dollars in unpaid U.S. court judgments against North Korea and now want the frozen crypto to cover part of those awards. The ETH sits in an address controlled by Arbitrum’s Security Council after it froze funds tied to the April Kelp DAO bridge hack.
A U.S. federal court in New York issued a restraining or garnishment notice on April 30, directing it to Arbitrum DAO through its governance forum. That order bars Arbitrum from moving the frozen funds while the case moves forward. The plaintiffs are not Kelp DAO exploit victims but long-standing creditors using terrorism-related judgments against Pyongyang to claim the seized ETH.
How the Kelp DAO Exploit Led to the Standoff
The issue stems from an exploit on Kelp DAO’s rsETH bridge on April 18 that drained around 116,500 rsETH, or about $292 million. Investigators linked part of the stolen ETH to addresses tied to North Korea’s Lazarus Group, a state-backed hacking group already under U.S. sanctions.
Arbitrum’s Security Council responded by freezing approximately 30,766 ETH and transferring it to a DAO-controlled wallet under emergency powers.
Arbitrum governance then began to discuss a plan to send the frozen funds to a recovery effort backed by Aave Labs, Kelp DAO, LayerZero, EtherFi, and others.
That plan would have helped repay users and reduce the risk of bad debt for DeFi protocols exposed to the hack. However, the New York court’s order now blocks any transfer, putting the DAO’s recovery proposal on hold.
DeFi Governance Collides with Sanctions Enforcement
The case sets up a direct clash between U.S. terrorism sanctions enforcement and decentralized governance on Arbitrum. If the creditors win, the frozen ETH would go to the North Korea victims rather than the Kelp DAO users affected by the exploit.
Lawyers have also warned that ignoring the court order could expose Arbitrum Security Council members and DAO voters to legal risk.
The battle raises significant concerns about how assets on permissionless networks might be accessed by courts after being touched by a security council or DAO. Additionally, it demonstrates how on-chain governance, sanctions policy, and state-backed hackers may clash over the same pool of confiscated cryptocurrency.
READ MORE: Dogecoin Price Holds Breakout Amid Record Whale Buys
