يقول Aave إن الدائنين يحاولون الاستيلاء على ETH المسروقة قبل أن يستعيد الضحايا مبلغ 71 مليون دولار

Aave filed an emergency motion last week to free millions in frozen ETH from a restraining order issued against the Arbitrum DAO, turning what began as a coordinated exploit recovery into a court dispute. Aave LLC said the restraining notice was served on Arbitrum DAO on May 1 and seeks to seize approximately $71 million in ETH that Aave argues belongs to victims of the April 18 exploit. The company asked the court for an expedited hearing and a temporary vacatur, arguing that the recovered assets were designated for user restitution and should not be frozen for outside claims. The ETH was frozen by Arbitrum's Security Council on Apr. 21, as Lazarus Group stole approximately 116,500 rsETH from Kelp DAO's LayerZero bridge three days earlier. The council used its 9-of-12 emergency powers to move 30,765 ETH without the attacker's key, designating it for a recovery pool. Aave's Apr. 24 funding update sized the original backing hole at 163,183 ETH. Between Kelp's own freeze, Arbitrum's action, and expected liquidations on Aave, the coalition closed about 52.9% of that difference. DeFi United assembled over $300 million in commitments for the rest, with Mantle contributing a credit facility of up to 30,000 ETH and Aave requesting 25,000 ETH from the treasury. The restraining notice, approved by a court in the Southern District of New York, targeted those frozen funds. The plaintiffs’ theory appears to rest on the alleged attribution of the exploit to Lazarus Group, the North Korean hacking operation, and on prior judgments tied to North Korea. Aave’s motion challenges the leap from alleged attacker control to lawful ownership, arguing that stolen assets do not become attachable property simply because a thief briefly held them. The service plan included posting on Arbitrum's governance forum and mailing copies to the legal entities behind the Arbitrum DAO, Security Council members, and large ARB holders, with a warning that noncompliance could result in legal consequences