In Beijing, the first case of a “mining” contract was confirmed and illegal.

On December 15, 2021, the Beijing Chaoyang Court held a public hearing and ruled on the service contract dispute arising from the “mining” of Bitcoin. The trial court ruled that the contract was invalid and decided to drop the plaintiff's claim for payment of a huge Bitcoin. The case is also the first case in which a Beijing court has ruled that a Bitcoin mining contract is invalid. Following the decision of the case, the Chaoyang Court also sent the decision to the Sichuan Provincial Development and Reform Commission to provide advice on the virtual benefits of “mining” activities related to the case, and accepted that the relevant departments carry out maintenance work. . Edit.

Case report

In May 2019, Plaintiff Fengfu Jiuxin Company and Plaintiff Zhongyan Zhichuang Company signed "Computer Equipment" and "Service Agreement" and other agreements, and Fengfu Jiuxin Company was released from pressure on Zhongyan Zhichuang Company. for her to buy and manage the micro-repair I performed. Servers (eg, "mining machines") provide valuable data in addition to Bitcoin's "mining" services and pay for additional services. Fengfu Jiuxin Company paid a management fee to Zhongyan Zhichuang Company. After signing the contract, Fengfu Jiuxin Company paid 10 million RMB to Zhongyan Zhichuang Company, and Zhongyan Zhichuang Company purchased the "mining machine" and signed the price agreement with the third company. The "mining machine" operates in the "mines" of Shuiluo and Shawan townships, Mui County, Liangshan County, Sichuan Province.

At the time of closing the deal, Zhongyan Zhichuang Company paid 18.3463 bitcoins to Fengfu Jiuxin Company according to value added tax information, and has not paid any income since then. . Fengfu Jiuxin Co., Ltd. reiterated that no benefit had been submitted to the court and requested that the court order 278.1654976 bitcoins to Zhongyan Zhichuang Co., Ltd. and to compensate for the loss of the micro-storage server. after expiration of service. I did. Fengfu Jiuxin Company stated that the value of Bitcoin to be delivered by Zhongyan Zhichuang Company was $ 9.55 million based on the Bitcoin exchange rate at the time of the trial.

referee result

Chaoyang Court said:

These "mining" activities consume a lot of energy and carbon emissions, which is not necessary to improve our national economic standards, save energy and reduce emissions, nor necessary to achieve the carbon footprint and our country's carbon objectives. Conflicts arise from the links between virtual currency and the market, and various risks such as the risk of counterfeit assets, the risk of market failure and the risks of speculation on investments stand out, affecting the welfare of the community. community. The companies Fengfu Jiuxin and Zhongyan Zhichuang are aware of the risks associated with the "mining industry" and the bitcoin industry, and while the companies are directly involved in banning the bitcoin industry, they have also signed on. an agreement on behalf of "industry", so this agreement must not be invalid. The assets and interests of the company should not be protected by law and the profits from the above actions should be borne by both parties themselves.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the contract between the two parties was invalid and decided to reject any claims made by the Fengfu Jiuxin company.

Case analysis

Although this document is claimed to be Beijing's first "contract" agreement, this conflict is not uncommon in the past, but mainly because of the equipment used to store or purchase minors, basically anything that has been brought to my attention. given in bitcoin. The information does not address the need for authorization to pay additional service revenues.

For example, (2019) Beijing 0114 Mingchu No. 22088 In case of dispute regarding a service contract between Taji (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. and Original Force Technology (Fujian) Co., Ltd., Party A Taji Company entrusted the mine. Supplies for the defendant Yuanli Company. For mining, the parties signed a contract for storage equipment. Then the power company did not have enough electricity to complete the contract. In the end, the court ruled that "the material agreement signed by the parties" represents the real objective of the parties and does not violate the fundamental rules of the law and regulations. The parties must fulfill their obligations under the agreement to be effective. If the parties fail to abide by the terms of the agreement or abide by the terms of the agreement, it will be responsible for the breach of the contract, including further contractual work, processing or payment. However, Taqer's claims about bitcoin loss due to inactivity have also not been substantiated.

On December 3, 2013, "warning about the Biocuro Depression" (of this warning ") (" September) is not true because the small coin can called "currency", but because of no points call because the right to call not. Call. In essence, not the legal state, and it cannot be used as a call in the market. Second, Bitcoin cannot be replaced by the right administrator in our country. "Meeting" If "Contact" Virtual call "or" call "virtual call", currency or "called" is a connection to the call and "Virtual call", or call "on a duty insurance. Once again, Bitcoin cannot be identified by the protection AJ's protection.

Article 127 of the “General Rules of People's Law” states that “If there is any provision in the law relating to the protection of blocking data and assets of virtual networks, these rules must be observed. "

From this, it can be seen that the general provisions of civil law allow special protections for virtual goods to other laws, and require legislation to regulate them. Bitcoin cannot be recognized as a virtual device according to the principles of the Civil Code because Korea does not currently have a Bitcoin protection law.

In essence, Bitcoin is not illegal, cannot be exchanged for fiat currency, and cannot be protected as a virtual asset under Chinese law. Therefore, Tachi company's request to POS company to pay Bitcoin is illegal and cannot be supported.

In fact, these are all contracts for consignment mining, but the reason for the difference is usually due to the different test dates. (2019) Beijing 0114 Minchu 22088 Judgment day is October 29, 2020. Currently, “Virtual Legal Notice” operates “Mining” (hereinafter referred to as “the“ Notice ”). Note ”) was not announced.

September 3, 2021, National Development and Reform Commission, Communist Party of China Central Propaganda Department, Office of the Cyber ​​Security Computerization Committee of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, Ministry of Industry and Technology of China information, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Finance, People's Bank of China, State Administration of Taxation, State Administration of Tax and Economic Administration, Banking Regulatory Authority of China and the National Electricity Authority have joined forces to publish a "rights notice." Virtual currency "mining" game (Operation Fagai [2021] # 1283) According to the announcement, virtual currency "mining" activities refer to the process of counting the properties of virtual currency by a "mining machine "special carbon energy consumption There are many, the benefits to the national economy are small, support for the development of industry and prosperity of the industry is limited, The integration of production and of virtual currency marketing has increased, the risks have increased, and blindness and poor development are positive. not good for community improvement and promote energy conservation and reduce emissions, so it must be repaired.

On September 15, Judge Li Jianhui of the Beijing Chaoyang Court, who held a hearing on the denial of the Bitcoin mining deal, said that in September this year, the National Development and Reform Commission and 10 other agencies had declared "rights". In the "expansion" of virtual currency "mining" activities, it is necessary to identify the damage of virtual currency "mining" activities and to use effective measures to repair "mining" activities. "virtual result. The agreement was declared null and void as all manufacturing and marketing activities had to comply with the provisions of applicable national laws and regulations.

Order of Chayang Court has not yet been fermented, but the contract character will not be true.

According to the results of the author's research, before the publication of the "Notice", most courts found that the equipment was trustworthy, sold by minors and other contracts arising from "the mining 'legal and valid, unless there are other laws to use.

In addition to the above ruling from Beijing Changping District Court, Wuhan Hongshan District People's Court ruled as follows: Bitcoin miner himself has assets. You express your will and the contract is concluded in accordance with the law. "

The most recent example is (2021) Guangdong 0307 Minchu No. 4907 Contractual dispute between Mei Jie and Jiang Wenpei. Upon conclusion of the agreement, the Shenzhen Longgang District People's Court specifically ruled, “Miner trading and Bitcoin mining. All the mining activities involved in this case took place in 2019, and the law of the time. the working group. "

Finally, it was decided to establish a mutual agreement based on the operation and management of the mining machine between the two parties. This is why the declaration of a "notice" is important from the acceptance of the contract until the rejection of the order of the first copy.

"Report on the Prevention and Operation of Criminal Proceedings in Virtual Enterprises" provided by China's financial institutions and 10 other institutions (Yinfa [2021] No. 237) and "Opinion" by the National Development and Reform Commission of mining management. The overall political structure of the company is to prevent and control the financial and criminal risks associated with the mining and trading of Bitcoin. If there is a similar "only" contract in the future, the court can change the previous documents in which the contract is valid. Contract disclaimer based on public order and good morals which undermines financial and commercial security.