Crypto Industry's 'Worst' Complainant: Pits, Illegal Contracts, Bitcoin Seizure

Several lawyers argued that the decision was in line with a number of policies, including the “Notice of protection and functionality of media advertising in virtual funds,” jointly announced by the central bank and 10 banks on September 24. This year. At the same time, he showed the outside world that the costs of “mining” virtual currency are not protected by law.

On December 15, the Beijing Chaoyang court ruled to reject the contract for Bitcoin's first “mining services”.

According to the verdict, the plaintiff paid the defendant 10 million yuan for sending bitcoin to Sichuan province, but only received 183,463 bitcoins, and decided that the plaintiff should send 278,1654976 bitcoins to court.

However, the court ruled that Bitcoin mining endangers the public interest and demanded that the contract be illegal, excluding all of the accused plaintiffs and asked Sichuan to be called to investigate the project " mining ”of Bitcoin involved in the case. The bitcoins involved in the incident may also be Chinese.

The complainant can be described as "having lost a wife and collapsing". Several lawyers argued that the decision was in line with a number of policies, including the “Notice of protection and functionality of media advertising in virtual funds,” jointly announced by the central bank and 10 banks on September 24. This year. At the same time, he showed the outside world that the costs of “mining” virtual currency are not protected by law.

The court invalidated the consignment contract

The Beijing People's High Court, "Beijing Law Cyber ​​Affairs," reported on the case on the day of the hearing.

In May 2019, Fengfu Jiuxin Company (Beijing Fengfu Jiuxin Marketing Technology Company) and Zhongyan Zhichuang Company (Zhongyan Zhichuang Blockchain Technology Co., Ltd.) entered into a "Computer Equipment Purchase Agreement", a "Service Agreement" and a “Cloud Data Server”. sign. The "Logging and Value-Added Data Services" agreement indicates that the former has relied heavily on the acquisition and management of "mining technology", providing value-added services of "mining" data from Bitcoin and paying for the product for additional services. , and previously paid for management. satisfactory for the latter.

After signing the contract, Fengfu Jiuxin Company paid Zhongyan Zhichuang Company 10 million yuan. The “mines” in Suiluo and Shawann counties in Mulli County were active.

At the time of closing the deal, Zhongyan Zhichuang Company paid Fengfu Jiuxin Company 18.3463 BTC for value-added information and has not paid any additional fees since. Fengfu Jiuxin company appealing for nonsense asked court to order court to send 278.1654976 bitcoins to Zhongyan Zhichuang company and pay for loss of micro-storage server after expiration of service.

The court ultimately ruled that the agreement between the parties was null and void and dismissed all claims made by the Fengfu Jiuxin company.

What is significant in this regard is that in May 2019, when the two companies signed the agreement, the price of Bitcoin fell from around $ 5,300 at the start of the month to $ 8,700 at the end. of the month. Bitcoin is worth around US $ 48,000, with a total value of around RMB 300,000.

At current bitcoin prices, the value of 18.3463 bitcoins acquired by Fengfu Jiuxin Company is estimated at 5.5 million yuan. This means that Fengfu Jiuxin 10 million yuan investment fell nearly 50%.

After the trial, the court ruled that Fengfu Jiuxin and Zhongyan Zhichuang Company also signed a "contract" when they learned that the "market" and the Bitcoin market were risky, and that the authorities directly limited the interference. in Bitcoin.This agreement is not profitable because it causes prejudice to the public interest of the person, and the ownership associated with the rights and benefits occurs without protection by law, and the benefits of the above practices are on both sides.

"Mine" recommended to be cleaned and repaired by the courts.

According to industry and trade data seen in Tianyan Check, Fengfu Jiuxin company was established in 2003 with registered capital of RMB 10 million, and its business is diversified by supporting technology, consulting, assistance and business planning to organize meetings.

Defendant Zhongyan Zhichuang was established in 2018 with registered capital of 60 million yuan, and Tianyan Check's listed business does not include the word "blockchain".

Beijing Law Cyber ​​Affairs announced after the trial that the Chaoyang court sent a decision to the Sichuan Provincial Development and Reform Commission to investigate the Bitcoin "mining" project involved in the 'business and restrict the company's participation. Continuation of "mining" activities. , while researching, cleaning up and improving local "mining" and other "mining" projects in virtual currency.

A Blockchain Daily reporter tried to contact the Sichuan Provincial Development and Reform Commission, but to no avail.

In fact, Sichuan Province is reorganizing its virtual “mining” value and market since this year.

In June this year, the Sichuan provincial department issued a notice requesting that key targets be inspected and closed, and that power companies conduct self-inspection and self-treatment. In addition, every city (state and region) is required to conduct immediate exploration and immediately stop a "mining" cryptocurrency exploration project at the same time, it is strictly forbidden to approve projects under different names. .

According to official data, on the morning of November 17, the Sichuan government held a video conference on State Virtual Benefit Reform and Trade to introduce virtual currency management and the impact of virtual currency. The following business processes and steps are divided.

legal review

Judge Li Zenghui warned us that Bitcoin does not have the same rights as our national fiat currency.

Li Ya, partner at Zhongwen law firm, told Blockchain Daily reporter that Bitcoin is not a government currency, does not receive legal payments, and cannot be used as market capitalization.

Li Ya said, “The virtual currency mining and trading industry is not protected by national law, but virtual currency is a virtual device recognized by law. cai.

Xiao Sa, partner of Dacheng law firm, commented in an interview with reporters:The reason why the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in this case is based on the premise that the contract is invalid and that the invalidity of the contract will not prevent the defendant from requesting payment for bitcoins. It is not recognized as property by the court.The 2013 “Bitcoin Risk Protection Report” explicitly states that “Bitcoin is a virtual device”.

He gave the example that even though Bitcoins are legalized by stealing from human beings, they can still be considered a thief in our country, and Bitcoins are protected against crime.

Xiao Sa also pointed out.Since cryptocurrency mining contracts are contracts that affect the national interest and the public interest, the virtual benefits involved in the deal can also be accounted for at the national level.

As "civil law", our main legal conditions for nullity of the contract are returns, payments and returns.The third result is the application of invalid agreements that affect the country and public relations, obliging the parties to return to the state property that they have deliberately or deemed illegal.

If one party consents, the interested party will return any other property acquired by the other party, and all items not required or approved in advance by the other party will be returned to the State. At the same time, care must be taken to protect the legitimate interests of the unwanted group in the desire to reclaim party property.

According to reports, the "Blockchain Daily" reporter did not receive a response from Fengfu Jiuxin Company and Zhongyan Zhichuang Company.