A Cardinal Sin: Developers Behind Blanksquare Refusing to Handover Aleph Zero Assets

Since departing Aleph Zero as the team responsible for overseeing ALL activities on the network, and rug-pulling on the community, Cardinal Cryptography have not only moved liquidity across to their new venture Blanksquare, but have also set about delaying or obstructing Aleph Zero from moving forward. Obstruction of business is a crime under EU jurisdiction and law, which can lead to tough penalties for the accused.

https://x.com/MarketMaker_69/status/1957019028863717774?s=19

When Refusal Becomes Malpractice: Why Withholding Company Assets is Criminal

Contractors often play a crucial role in running day-to-day operations. They may manage infrastructure, control access to critical accounts, or even hold sensitive data. But there is a line between fulfilling responsibilities and abusing trust.

In this case, the contractor, Cardinal Cryptography who worked with Aleph Zero has crossed that line. Their refusal to return assets, credentials, and sensitive information after their role ended is not just unprofessional — it’s potentially criminal.

The Reality of the Situation

Here’s what happened:

The contractor was entrusted with operational control, including sensitive systems and data.

Once their contract ended, Aleph Zero requested a full handover — as is standard, expected, and legally required.

Instead of complying, the contractor deliberately withheld control of some company assets.

This is not a “misunderstanding.” It is a deliberate act of obstruction. And under EU law, it can amount to multiple offenses.

Why This Conduct Crosses Into Criminal Territory

1. Unauthorized Access After Termination

The moment the contract ended, the contractor lost all right to access or hold company accounts or systems. By refusing to hand over and continuing to control these assets, they are engaging in unauthorized access. EU cybercrime laws make it clear: accessing a system without permission is a criminal act. Source: Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention article 2

2. Misappropriation of Company Property

These assets — whether accounts, servers, or sensitive data — do not belong to the contractor. Holding them back is equivalent to seizing property that isn’t theirs. In legal terms, this is misappropriation, and in some cases it qualifies as theft.

The EU has long recognized “computer-related fraud and misappropriation” as criminal conduct. Source: EU Fraud and Counterfeiting Framework Decision 2001

3. Data Protection Violations (GDPR)

If personal or customer data is involved, the contractor is unlawfully retaining it. GDPR requires immediate return or secure deletion once a data processor’s role ends. Failure to comply is not a grey area — it is a violation, and one with heavy consequences.

Article 28(3)(g) GDPR: processors must, “at the choice of the controller, delete or return all the personal data” after services end. Source: Article 28(3)(g) GDPR

4. Obstruction and Potential Fraud

Blocking access to systems disrupts business operations and causes financial damage. If the contractor uses this obstruction as leverage — to demand payment, concessions, or anything else — it is not just harmful. It becomes outright fraudulent behavior.

EU law criminalizes fraud committed “through manipulation of computer systems or data”. Source: Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention Article 8

The Risks the Contractor Now Faces

Let’s be clear: the risks here are not abstract. They are real, measurable, and serious.

Unauthorized Access (Computer Crime)

Punishable by fines and, in many EU jurisdictions, prison sentences of up to 5 years.

GDPR Violations

Regulators can issue fines of up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover.

Theft or Misappropriation

Criminal charges for holding property that is not theirs. Again, punishable by both fines and imprisonment.

Fraud or Extortion

If the withholding is used to pressure Aleph Zero, this may escalate into charges carrying even harsher penalties.

These are established legal consequences under EU jurisdiction.

Why This Matters

In crypto and tech, where trust and transparency are everything, this behavior is more than a private dispute. It puts customers, users, and the company’s reputation at risk. A contractor who refuses to hand over assets is effectively holding the business hostage.

Such conduct undermines not only Aleph Zero, but also the broader ecosystem that depends on accountability and responsible stewardship.

Final Word

Cardinal Cryptography's actions are not a negotiating tactic. They are malpractice. They are unlawful. And they are potentially criminal.

By refusing to return assets and sensitive data, this entity has placed themselves in direct conflict with EU cybercrime laws, data protection rules, and property rights.

Aleph Zero has every right — and arguably a duty — to pursue legal remedies, civil and criminal. The contractor’s refusal is not just a breach of trust. It is an offense that carries real penalties, from massive fines to possible imprisonment.