IG Review for India 2026: RBI Alert List, Regulation, Login, and Forex Risk
IG review for India in 2026: see the RBI Alert List entry, overseas regulation, login checks, forex limits, and a clear broker safety checklist.
简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
اردو
Abstract:In the latest twist of the FTX bankruptcy saga, a lawsuit seeks to recover $935 million transferred to Bybit's Mirana Corp, alleging fraudulent intent to defraud creditors. The case highlights significant disputes and strategies for asset recovery in the complex world of cryptocurrency.

In a significant development in the ongoing FTX bankruptcy saga, the entities responsible for managing the FTX bankruptcy process have initiated a lawsuit with the aim of recouping $935 million. These funds were allegedly transferred under dubious circumstances to Mirana Corp, the investment arm of the cryptocurrency platform Bybit, among others, just prior to FTX's Chapter 11 filing in November 2022. This move marks a new chapter in the complex FTX case, which continues to unfold with various twists and turns.
The core of the lawsuit revolves around claims that Mirana Corp leveraged its “VIP” status to receive a significant portion of the $935 million transferred shortly before FTX's bankruptcy filing. This action is described as an attempt “to hinder, delay, or defraud FTX.coms current or future creditors,” a serious accusation that underscores the high stakes involved in this case. The lawsuit details that Mirana Corp received assets worth approximately $837.8 million, while Time Research, another entity, received around $48 million.
FTX's bankruptcy managers argue that the transfers made to Mirana Corp, Time Research, and certain individuals were fraudulent and thus should be invalidated under Section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. The pursuit to reclaim the full amount, including interest, is a strategic move aimed at bolstering the bankruptcy estates of the debtors.
Adding to the complexity, the lawsuit alleges that Bybit, the crypto exchange platform, has been refusing to process transfer requests from FTX debtors. In a controversial move, Bybit reportedly demanded the release of about $20 million that Mirana Corp was unable to withdraw before FTX halted transactions. According to the lawsuit, FTX controls assets worth $125 million held at Bybit, leading to a standoff where Bybit is accused of “holding these assets hostage.”
To address this deadlock, FTX bankruptcy managers are seeking legal enforcement under the Bankruptcy Code to ensure the transfer of funds to the debtors' estate. This legal approach signifies their determination to navigate through the bankruptcy process and recover lost assets.
As the FTX case continues to evolve, with its multiple layers and significant financial implications, it remains a focal point in the cryptocurrency industry. This latest lawsuit is a critical step in the ongoing efforts to unravel the complex web of transactions and holdings that marked the FTX collapse. Stay updated with the latest news and developments in this high-profile bankruptcy case.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.

IG review for India in 2026: see the RBI Alert List entry, overseas regulation, login checks, forex limits, and a clear broker safety checklist.

FCA warns Swift TradeX in a notice first published and updated on 1 September 2026. The UK Financial Conduct Authority says the firm may be providing or promoting financial services without permission, is not authorised, and may be targeting people in the UK. The notice names the website swifttradexai.com, a Worcester address and a UK telephone number, but also cautions that unauthorised businesses may use incorrect or borrowed contact details. The confirmed issue is authorisation status—not a court finding about every transaction. Anyone considering a payment should stop, verify the firm independently, and avoid using contact information supplied by the platform itself.

ThinkMarkets review for India: check the RBI Alert List, overseas entities, regulation, login security, forex rules, costs, withdrawals, and leverage risk.

Did mirrox, a brokerage firm, ask you to keep your margin level above 250%-300% and make you add funds immediately if it dropped below it? Did the broker prevent you from opening a trade despite having a healthy equity balance? Did it close your trading account upon a withdrawal request? Many traders have raised these concerns online while sharing their respective mirrox reviews. This article aims to examine these user allegations while answering the popular question: Is mirrox legit or a scam?