You could just read the bill, its pretty plain language. For the LOLs I'll read it for you. The DARE act boils down to crypto is completely socialized in the Bahamas UNLESS the business is being operated under pretty typical accounting principles. Or rephrased, hands off anarcho if you're not a crook, but if you're a crook then what amounts to "The SEC for the Bahamas" is your new CEO. This is not exactly the way banks are run in the USA, but its close enough to echo. It seems a reasonable way to regulate criminality in an industry. Its very easy to follow the common sense laws to avoid, essentially having your company nationalized by the regulator.
Who is "they":
Under Part V Section 41. Co-operative Power paragraph 2, as what boils down to "the SEC for the Bahamas" they will cooperate with other nations equivalent of the SEC "other domestic regulatory authority". So if the US SEC or US bankruptcy court asked them nicely, they can at their discretion (see paragraph 4) cooperate. My point above is the "they" deciding to do this is kind of unclear. Certainly gaining control of assets would kind of be the job of the bankruptcy court so if they asked the Bahamas Commission to help out, could, and in my opinion, probably did.
Based on my opinion of what I've read about what happened, SBF violated the entirety, not just one or two paragraphs, but the entire section, of Part III section 17 "Adequate systems and controls for digital token exchanges", subs a thru e inclusive, so they could be operating entirely on their own.
They could be doing all of this on their own or as a favor to the USA SEC, I donno. But no one seems to have considered Sec 41 in their rush to decide to "they" are whom are deciding things.
Anyway, regardless who decided to act:
Under Part II Section 5 paragraph 2 sub h, "do all things, and take all action, which may be necessary or expedient or are incidental to the discharge of any function or power given to the Commission".
The power they're probably invoking is Part II Section 4 paragraph 2 sub b, for the purposes of ensuring the "... development and maintenance of investor protection standards with respect to digital asset business..." So their legal purpose is to stop crooks from embezzling investors money. Combined with the paragraph above they likely think the leaving the investor assets in the control of SBF would be a little unwise as everyone seems to think he's already stolen billions of dollars worth of them, so what little is left should be preserved or at least removed from his opportunity to continue to pilfer.
Under Part III section 19 para 1 sub e, when they declared bankruptcy the registration to operate is auto-revoked and then para 4 hits "Where the Commission has suspended the registration of a digital asset business, the Commission may impose such conditions upon or give such directions to the registrant, including timeline for compliance, with which conditions or directions the registrant must comply."
So I have not seen the paperwork served on SBF in a leak or whatever, but it probably resembles the above.