It reminds me of the Sam Bankman-fried case, but it also quite different. SBF thought the abstractions would protect him from the law when he clearly was misleading investors and using code to abstract away his fraud. However, in this case, the code/fraud was presented and used as intended. While I believe SBF was innocent of defrauding his early investors who were foolish to trust such a system, he was guilty for other reasons.

Andean Medjedovic's case shouldn't have even made it to court and he had no obligation to leave his crypto or cashed out legal tender with some "custodian" and spend the next several years of his life as a beta tester for establishing case law. This wasn't just "code is law," more accurately, "under the stipulations of the contract, code is law."