Many courts have ruled that Bitcoin and other business transactions are invalid.

Recently, the Beijing Chaoyang Court and Dongcheng District Court ruled on the status of Bitcoin's "mining" contracts in their respective jurisdictions, and the ruling was similar. .

A 21st Century Business Herald reporter discovered that in a Dec. 26 online ruling, several courts ruled that commercial contracts related to cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are invalid. In case of change, the request will be canceled.

Two Beijing courts declared the contract invalid.

On December 16, the Beijing Chaoyang Court Official Weibo announced that on the morning of December 15, the Beijing Chaoyang Court held a public hearing and ruled on the service contract decision due to the delay in filing Bitcoin mining questions. The court ruled that the original contract was invalid and the ruling denied the plaintiff's request to pay a lot of bitcoin.

In addition, after the verdict of the case, the Chaoyang Court forwarded the decision to the Sichuan Provincial Development and Reform Commission to investigate the bitcoin mining project related to the case, and the company involved included in the case. the case to "inspect mining operations" and operations. information on “mining” and other “mining” projects in local virtual currency, as well as clean-up and modification.

The specific circumstances of the case are as follows. In May 2019, Fengfu Jiuxin Company and Zhongyan Zhichuang Company signed "IT Equipment Contract", "Service Contract" and "Cloud Data Server Hosting and Data Value Added Services Contract" . On record by the Fengfu Jiuxin company, Zhongyan Zhichuang purchases and manages micro-storage space servers (eg "mining machines"), provides valuable data for "mining" Bitcoin, and pays additional income. Fengfu Jiuxin Company pays the management fee. Zhongyan Zhichuang Company.

After signing the contract, Fengfu Jiuxin Company paid Zhongyan Zhichuang Company 10 million yuan. Zhongyan Zhichuang Company bought the "mining machine" and signed a contract with a third company. The "mining machine" in Muli County and the "mine" in Shuiluo and Shawan Towns, Liangshan County, Sichuan Province, are in operation.

At the time of closing the deal, Zhongyan Zhichuang Company paid 18.3463 bitcoins to Fengfu Jiuxin Company based on the value added tax information, and has not paid any additional income since then. . 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.

Ultimately, the Chaoyang Court ruled that the agreement between the two parties was illegal and decided to quash any claims made by the Fengfu Jiuxin Company.

Coincidentally, after the above information became public, several media reported that the Beijing Dongcheng Court attempted a settlement on the Bitcoin "mining" price dispute on October 25, 2021.

A particular example is that in May 2020, Qinju Company, Yuner Company and Kunying Company signed a “Server Equipment Purchase Agreement”, “Project Cooperation Agreement” and “Equipment Service Agreement”. special IT for the IT room in the cloud ”.

The two sides have agreed to jointly carry out Bitcoin "management" activities. Yun'er Company has acquired industry experts (eg, "mining machinery") from Kunying Company in the form of business membership. Kunying Company authorized Qinju Company to deliver goods to Yuner on its behalf. The company manages "minors". The income from "mining" was collected by the Qinju company before the Yuner company paid for the "mining machine". In case of network failure, power failure and other problems, in case of production accident, Yuner company will repair and repair the defects in time, and refund the loss to Qinju company.

At the time of contract completion, the “miners” involved in the incident were operating on “mines” in Zhaotong, Yunnan and Ordos in Inner Mongolia, and several power plants were generated during the creation of “miners”. As a result, Qinju Company suffered large financial losses and paid the loss of 33.01424886 Bitcoins due to the fire, totaling 5.3 million yuan.

Finally, the Dongcheng Court also ruled that the contract was invalid.

How can we determine the outcome of the action between the two parties once the contract is empty? In this regard, the two houses declared in a judgment: “We all bear the guilt.

Losing after the contract is void

In this regard, the journalist from the 21st Century Business Herald specifies in article 157 of the Constitution: “After the civil law is deemed illegal, repealed, or not. Legally, property obtained from the offender because the event cannot be returned or does not need to be returned. The caregiver must compensate others for the damage. In the event of negligence on the part of either party, each party will be held liable. If the law provides otherwise, it must be observed. "These rules are similar to previous agreements.

The Chaoyang court ruled that the exchange involved in this case was a "major" operation that used specialized "mining machines" to calculate and generate virtual results. These "mining" activities use a lot of energy and carbon emissions, which is not necessary to improve our national economic standards, save energy and reduce emissions, and not create necessary to meet targets. carbon and carbon of our country. Many risks such as inconsistency and illegal risk, risk of business failure and investment risk resulting from virtual profits and trading of business relationships are significant, which adversely affects the well-being of the community.

At the same time, Fengfu Jiuxin Company and Zhongyan Zhichuang Company, aware of the risks in the “mining industry” and the Bitcoin industry, and know that the companies involved clearly limit the risks associated with Bitcoin. mining exploitation ". The public interest resulting from the disaster must be unrealistic and unrealistic, and the property associated with the rights and benefits derived therefrom must be unprotected by law, and the benefits resulting from the above acts must flow from both parts themselves.

“Bitcoin does not have the same rights as our national fiat currency. The virtual currency market has no real value and it is very easy to manage the price. There are many risks, including the risk of exposure, business failure and investment speculation. Token announces Risks in the fields of finance and economics. "Li Zenghui, chief judge of the Chaoyang court case, told the people of consumer goods that state regulators had repeatedly informed consumers of the occurrence and loss of these funds. Be aware of the dangers of cryptocurrency trading.

The reason why the contract is illegal in the case tried by the Dongseong District Court is that it violates good civil customs. “Mining” is a risky investment which uses significant capital and does not lead to the realization of “double carbon” projects.

Regarding the issue of self-payment in bankruptcy after an illegal contract, Dongcheng District Court Judge Feng Ning said in the context of the ruling that Bitcoin is a unique virtual device and has no the same rights as the law. Bitcoin “mining” is the essence of risky investments that seek to recover the stock, and investors must bear the risks themselves.

In addition, Feng Ning believes that from the perspective of liability, policy risk, market risk, and return on investment from Bitcoin mining activities, it is the traders themselves who need to do this. This is because investors ignore the rules. Both parties are responsible for the occurrence of the laissez-faire and the nullity of the contract, so all parties are responsible for the consequences and consequences.

The same rules apply in the virtual currency market in different areas

The above-mentioned decision of the Beijing District Court has also been brought to court in many parts of our country. A 21st Century Business Herald reporter said in an online decision on Dec. 26 that several courts have ruled that business transactions involving cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin were not legal, and the petition was dismissed because it could not not be verified. The conditions of existence depend on the reality of the market.

For example, a case of a contradictory confidentiality agreement was recently reported by the Kashgar District Central Court in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. At the end of 2017, retired Ma (plaintiff) was informed by lawyer Peng that he wanted to invest in financial management on the MFC platform, and did not know how, so he trusted Peng to register for financial management. . and other property management issues.

As a result, from December 2017 to February 2018, Ma paid Peng about 246,000 yuan by wire transfer. 246,000 yuan, it transfers the equivalent content of the MFC platform account to the Ma account without sending money directly to the account registered with Ma.

In April 2019, Ma demanded that Peng return all the money he exchanged after thinking it was unnecessary and that he had been cheated, and the two eventually went to court.

The case went to first, second and appeal. The First Court ordered Peng to return all the money from Ma's investment, and the Second Court upheld the first ruling that Peng Chuan had committed a crime or had committed an illegal act. illegal. If there is negligence in the legal relationship of the contract free to entrust.

However, during the retrial, the Central Court of Kashgar County in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region initially pointed out that the cause of the case was a dispute over the personal financial management terms of the contract. platform, but has not been registered, submitted or approved by China Financial Securities and other regulatory bodies. The process is start-up and members use and benefit directly or indirectly from trading virtual currencies on the exchange. The number of employees is improving as a basis of pay and compensation.

The court said it could recognize MFC's financial governance as a breach of the pyramid by combining judgments submitted by parties, according to the response from security agencies, and the media. Chapter 52 of the Law of the Republic of China, Ma, Peng and M. Peng Xi's confidentiality and financial management are illegal due to the infringement of public interests, human rights and administrative obligations. To the right.

Ultimately, the court ruled that Ma should bear 40% of the negligence and Feng 60% of the negligence, depending on the parties' negligence in the financial handling of the case. That is, Peng bears 60% of Ma's responsibility for loss and Ma Bear bears the rest of the loss.

In August 2021, the Shanghai Jiading District People's Court heard several lawsuits regarding the disputed sales of the plaintiff and Beijing Xinfubao Technology Co., Ltd. ("Xinfubao"). In this case, the applicant changed their Xinpaybao wallet address via APP (Get Coins via Internet Blockchain) using their wallet on APP "imToken" (Internet Virtual Wallet) from August to September 2017. Address, address must be a foreign online address) Send the approved amount of Bitcoin and Ether to buy SIP tokens provided by Xinpaybao. After the exchange, the applicant pays the registration in the “Pay Wallet” application and you receive SIP tokens purchased on your account.

Subsequently, on September 4, 2017, seven departments, including the joint venture, issued a "payment term protection notice" and the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the company. attempted to pay for SIP tokens, but Xinfubao did not back out and requested an appeal.

However, during the trial, the plaintiff provided photographs, altered data, recovered symbolic information and other evidence, which were invalid and unproven. . . Approve the request.

In addition, the Yueshu District People's Court, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, Judgment (2020) Yue 0104 Min Chu No. In 6149, the parties declared that they should comply with the governing rules and regulations, abide by the community culture and do not harm the community. Social public interest that affects the economy and the economy. Illegal debt is not protected by law. Public investments and illegal coin exchanges in BRC (a virtual currency network similar to Bitcoin) are independent, but cannot be protected by Bridge Law, and the benefits and risks of trading come from the investors themselves.

Although the contract and legal status are considered invalid, payment of the settlement is still different from local courts.

For example, according to the Huangyan District People's Court, Taizhou City, in resolution (2021) Zhejiang 1003 Minchu 2034, “Declaration on the proclamation of tokens and the prevention of financial crimes. Announced on Sep 4, 2017, currency USDT is details. One of the benefits is not provided by the listed financial institution in Korea and has no financial features such as legal payment or coercion. Announced on the 3rd of the month. The "Digital Currency Quantity Consignment Agreement" is a non-binding contract.

Finally, the Huangyan District People's Court, Taizhou City, ruled that the goods obtained from the defendant under the nullity contract should be returned to the plaintiff. Payment requests such as interest are not legal and the court does not support them.