好的，这是根据您的要求对输入内容进行翻译后的结果。 Better Call Saul (Crypto Season): A Law Firm Specializing in Targeting North Korean Hacker Victims

Original by Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author: Azuma (@azuma_eth)

The high-profile "Kelp hack, Aave bad debt" incident has taken a new twist.

Just as everyone believed that fundraising was complete and the vulnerability was about to be fully resolved (see "Final Fix Released: The Aave Bad Debt Saga Nears Its End"), a law firm has targeted the very funds intended to cover this vulnerability with an injunction entirely unforeseen by the crypto community.

On May 2, MegaETH lead PaperImperium disclosed an official document from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on X. The document reveals that a law firm named Gerstein-Harrow has filed an injunction application with the court, seeking to prevent Arbitrum DAO from transferring the approximately $71 million in ETH assets previously frozen in connection with the Kelp hack. Their claim: "This fund should be used to satisfy outstanding judgments against North Korea for cases involving terrorism, kidnapping, and other matters dating back over 26 years."

• Odaily Note: The original injunction filing can be viewed here.

Gerstein-Harrow has also applied for alternative service of legal notice to the Arbitrum DAO, treating it as an organization that can be held accountable. The Arbitrum DAO has a Security Council governed by ARB holders, capable of taking action in emergencies. Therefore, if relevant members refuse to comply, they could face legal consequences such as contempt of court.

Who is Gerstein-Harrow?

Public records show that Gerstein-Harrow is a U.S. law firm headquartered in Washington, D.C., with offices in New York, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. Its partners are Charlie Gerstein and Jason Harrow.

Following PaperImperium's disclosure, renowned on-chain investigator ZachXBT quickly commented, stating: "Gerstein-Harrow is a predatory law firm, and their tactics are frankly egregious."

ZachXBT noted that whenever there is a new incident involving North Korean hackers (Lazarus Group) and crypto assets are frozen, this firm emerges, claiming to represent a lawsuit against North Korea from 26 years ago. They assert the right to file claims on behalf of victims against North Korea. Yet, obviously, this original case has absolutely nothing to do with the crypto industry, the exploit, or the hacking incident.

Beyond the Kelp hack, Gerstein-Harrow has attempted similar maneuvers in the wake of the Harmony, Bybit, and other hacks. More absurdly, Gerstein-Harrow doesn't even conduct its own investigations. Instead, it directly leverages the findings of industry security experts like ZachXBT to file freezing orders, playing a "wait-and-seize" game.

The Basis for the Injunction: A 26-Year-Old Case

The basis for Gerstein-Harrow's injunction application, including this one, is a case they represent that is 26 years old.

This incident dates back to 2000. That year, North Korean defector Dong Shik Kim disappeared and was never heard from again. Evidence suggested he was likely kidnapped by North Korean agents and secretly taken back to North Korea. In 2009, Dong Shik Kim's family sued the North Korean government in a U.S. court, with Gerstein-Harrow acting as their legal counsel.

On April 9, 2015, the U.S. court ruled on the case, affirming that Dong Shik Kim was kidnapped by North Korean agents and likely died after enduring torture in a North Korean prison camp. The court ordered the North Korean government to pay $330 million in damages to Kim's family.

It sounds absurd for a U.S. law firm to order the North Korean government to pay compensation. Media reports at the time noted: "North Korea is not expected to pay the compensation, but lawyers will seek to seize North Korea's assets, such as bank accounts and company shares."

Note the phrase "lawyers will seek to seize North Korea's assets." This is the very "basis" Gerstein-Harrow asserts. Simply put, their strategy is to use a court judgment won long ago to pursue North Korea-related assets discovered or appearing now.

And in the current sanctions environment, where is it easiest to find so-called "North Korean assets"? Naturally, it's the frequently hacked crypto industry, which has gotten used to "blaming" North Korean hackers – whether these incidents are genuinely the work of North Korean hackers remains unclear.

So, whenever new funds linked to North Korea are frozen, or other on-chain identifiable assets connected to North Korea appear, Gerstein-Harrow emerges, claiming "these funds should be used to execute the previous judgment."

It's akin to Person A winning a lawsuit over a decade ago, with a court ordering Person B to pay $1 million, which Person B has never paid. Now, police suddenly seize a sum of money related to Person B. Person A jumps in and says, "This money should be given to me; I have a prior judgment." The problem is, this money was likely just obtained by Person B from Person C, who is the directly affected victim.

Can This Maneuver Succeed?

Regarding the injunction filed by Gerstein-Harrow and whether it will impact the process of fixing DeFi vulnerabilities, industry professionals have offered their analyses.

PaperImperium commented that he doesn't believe Gerstein-Harrow has a high probability of winning this dispute, but getting them to walk away empty-handed might also be difficult. Given the crypto industry's urgency to patch vulnerabilities, Gerstein-Harrow might seize this opportunity to forcibly extort a "cut."

Crypto user and lawyer @lex_node stated that this injunction is, in form, a legally effective asset freeze. Its basis is not fabricated but stems from the existing U.S. judgment enforcement system. Unless certain jurisdictional arguments succeed, the Arbitrum DAO cannot currently use the frozen funds until an asset stripping hearing. Even if they ultimately win the right to keep the funds, they should fight for it through litigation, not decide unilaterally. It sounds extreme, but that's the situation.

In summary, there appears to be a space for legal maneuvering within the system. Gerstein-Harrow's claim seems far-fetched, but it is a "legitimate tool" built upon the existing judgment enforcement framework. Even if they can't ultimately seize the funds, they can materially disrupt the recovery process of DeFi projects like Kelp and Aave through freezing and delay. The problem is that DeFi recovery is highly time-sensitive. Completing the fix a day earlier allows the protocol to resume normal operations sooner. Gerstein-Harrow may have precisely identified this point to "cash in" on the situation.

As the Gerstein-Harrow injunction incident unfolds, industry figures like ZachXBT have begun calling for the establishment of a DAO focused on litigation matters to counter malicious legal shakedowns. This may become a necessary lesson for the industry: as on-chain funds frequently enter the purview of real-world judicial systems, relying solely on code and consensus is insufficient to build a complete line of defense. For all practitioners, how to build the capability to counter off-chain legal risks is becoming a new imperative, as critical as security and liquidity.