Crypto’s Cult of Personality Meets the Rule of Law -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Seizing luxury watches is a visually interesting photo opportunity. However, seizing watches as part of justice is a poor way to achieve justice.

The reported arrest of Richard Heart in Istanbul on October 14, 2026, will likely cause a shift in the way people think about more than just one famous person who is associated with cryptocurrency. After all, Justice Minister Akın Gürlek has confirmed that Richard James Schueler (founder of HEX, PulseChain, and PulseX) was arrested by law enforcement officials during a raid in Beşiktaş. During the raid, it is believed that law enforcement officials confiscated cash, cryptocurrency wallets, and high-value items. This is a matter of law enforcement action, not determination of guilt.

The issue that is at the heart of this problem is whether or not a government can create responsibility across national boundaries while still providing protection for both the investor and the rights of those who are being charged with wrongdoing.

Precision is key. CoinDesk identified the arrest as a result of a Finnish Interpol Red Notice, which reports indicate that the allegations from Finland involve aggravated tax fraud. A Red Notice is used by Interpol to seek the assistance of its member states in locating and temporarily detaining individuals. It does not constitute an international arrest warrant nor does it represent a formal conviction. Therefore, the detention of the individual in Turkey and any subsequent extraditions must be based on relevant laws.

Heart’s US litigation remains independent. The SEC filed a civil lawsuit against Heart in 2023 for allegedly raising more than $1 billion via unregistered offerings and misusing those funds. A federal judge subsequently dismissed that civil lawsuit in 2025 based on the SEC failing to establish sufficient links with the US. While the court’s jurisdictional decision did not address the Finnish allegations, neither should commentators turn a dismissed civil complaint into an established US criminal prosecution.

Digital fundraising is capable of reaching a global audience; however, the ability to enforce regulations on this type of fundraising is limited due to the geographic boundary lines of each country. To address this discrepancy, there must be legislation and cooperative efforts among nations, as opposed to ignoring the fact that there are jurisdictional boundaries.

The investment lesson is just as serious. A founder’s showiness can hide oversight of the company’s management, cash flow and decision making. Wealth on display shows the ability to spend money. Wealth cannot prove that customers’ funds are safe.

Investors need to have specific answers to concrete questions such as: Who has control over the privileged keys? Which wallets have a concentration of funds allocated to them? Who has the ability to make changes to the primary contracts? If the founder is no longer able to function, what will happen?

Five strategic responses should follow.

First, Turkish and Finnish authorities should clarify what is the legal basis of their proceedings, as well as separate the allegations based on jurisdiction, and then provide individuals with timely access to counsel and judicial review. Publicizing the case must not be used as a form of punishment prior to the trial.

Investigators must investigate where the money goes as opposed to simply listing what they have. To confirm that someone owns a hardware wallet and all of the assets tied to it, you need to verify the owner of the wallet (attribution), their previous transactions (transaction history) and who ultimately controls the assets (beneficial ownership).

Third, regulatory agencies need to enforce a requirement for founders to disclose their share allocation, administrative authority, treasury arrangement(s), and any other material dependency(ies). Any claim of being decentralized will then be tested against how much direct control the organization has over itself.

4th, cross-border teams should collaborate to protect evidence and legally restrict assets. Forensic records need to be verifiable and accessible so that a credible defense challenge can take place.

Finally, as part of the eventual recovery process, the identification of valid claim holders, protection of third party assets and the publication of clear guidelines for distributing funds should be established. The amount of seized funds represent what was taken into possession, while the amount of restitution received indicates if those who were determined to have been harmed by the crime have received a substantial form of compensation.

The heart is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Investors deserve institutions with the ability to investigate power, but not worship power.

An international system which is able to take photographs of stolen watches in less time than it takes to find out the truth behind those thefts, resolve disputes over those watches and give back to their rightful owners the money that was taken from them by illegal means will always remain a lasting scandal.

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia