> Why is crypto.com able to retrieve their funds in this case, but crypto hacks around the world result in customers being told there's no recourse? A business

> Why is crypto.com able to retrieve their funds in this case, but crypto hacks around the world result in customers being told there's no recourse? A business mistakenly sending an obviously excessive refund to a customer over a normal wire transfer is not a new phenomenon. There is precedence, courts are familiar with it, and the parties are few and identified. Exchanges getting custodied digital assets stolen is not really comparable from a legal perspective. (Answering your actual question of "why..", not addressing if this makes sense or is right) > Doesn't appear crypto.com paid back the $34M that was stolen from customers in the hack a few months back. They did AFAIK. > The crypto crowd sure like regulations at the most unexpected times. What are you referring to here exactly? Who likes what regulation?