Aave has filed an emergency motion asking a court to lift a restraining notice that froze a batch of Ethereum tokens. The decentralized finance protocol argues that the freeze is legally baseless because theft does not transfer ownership of property.
The frozen ETH and the restraining order
The motion targets a restraining notice placed on ETH held by Aave. The notice was obtained by Gerstein Harrow, a firm that claims rights to the tokens. Aave says the funds were stolen, and the restraining order improperly blocks the protocol from managing them.
Aave's core legal argument
In court filings, Aave contends that theft cannot confer lawful ownership. The protocol's lawyers called Gerstein Harrow's legal position “illogical and contrary to law.” Aave argues that the restraining notice should be lifted because the firm lacks a valid property interest in the frozen ETH.
What's at stake
The dispute centers on whether a restraining order can stand when the underlying claim rests on stolen assets. Aave's motion asks the court to quickly rule on the notice. The outcome could affect how protocols handle freeze requests tied to alleged theft.
Gerstein Harrow has not yet responded publicly to the emergency motion. A hearing on the request has not been scheduled, but Aave is pressing for an expedited decision.
