News
Singapore Prohibits Founders of 3AC from Financial Management
MAS bans Three Arrows Capital co-founders Kyle Davies and Zhu Su after platform collapse; their online presence raises concerns.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has recently issued a prohibition against Three Arrows Capital’s co-founders. Following the platform’s collapse, both Kyle Davies and Zhu Su have moved out of the scene. Since then, the co-founders have occasionally come to the front on X and made some out-of-place and oblivious posts, giving excuses for any wrongdoings.
3AC Founders Receive a 9-Year Ban from Singaporean Regulator for Financial Management
In such posts, they also presented excuses for the release of their separate business ventures. One of them was the exchange forum OPNX and the other was an exclusive hedge fund called 3AC Ventures. Su Zhu and Kyle Davies have reportedly been infringing the securities laws implemented within Singapore’s jurisdiction.
After that, the regional financial regulator VARA fined Dubai-based OPNX. Up till now, none of the two platforms has paid the fine that the authority issued back in mid-August. Nonetheless, they paid the individual fines that resulted from the same investigation. In the meantime, the authorities in Singapore have implemented a straight prohibition on investment-related or financial businesses.
They Cannot Even Carry out Management and Substantial Shareholding in Singapore
The respective businesses will witness the prohibition for the upcoming 9 years within the country’s jurisdiction. In the statement of 14 September, the MAS stated that the agency banned the co-founders from any regulated operations. They will have the permission to do so during the prohibition time. In addition to this, they cannot manage, play the role of a director, or turn into a substantial shareholder in Singapore.
Also Read: Zodia, the Crypto Custody Platform Launched in Singapore
While putting such a ban on them, the MAS also revealed some other law infringements. The agency asserted that Davies and Su remained ineffective in informing the central bank regarding a newly employed business representative. Moreover, the MAS claimed that they provided wrong information to the regulatory body and that they followed an adequate risk management agenda.
