How does the heavyweight court cite 924 to notify the judge of existing cases? (one)

Through a search on the Judgment Documents website, there are currently about 20 documents that have been cited in the “Notice on Further Preventing and Disposing of Hype Risks in Virtual Currency Transactions” to judge past currency-related cases, and the civil acts involved in these cases are basically Occurs before September 15, 2021. According to the provisions of the Legislation Law, the law has no retrospective effect on the legal facts before its implementation. Regardless of whether it is appropriate to cite new rules and old cases in these judgments, after reviewing all relevant cases, we know that the current court-level views after the introduction of the new policy mainly include the following points:

(1) The activities involved in the case are illegal financial activities and do not fall within the scope of legal acceptance of civil litigation, so the prosecution is dismissed;

(2) The activities involved in the case are illegal financial activities, which are not protected by law, and the perpetrator bears the risk at his own risk, so the claim is dismissed;

(3) The activities involved are illegal financial activities, the contract is invalid, and the property is returned.

In addition, in cases involving possible criminal offenses, some courts have rejected the prosecution and transferred them to the public security organs; some courts, after hearing the case, believe that there is no criminal case involved, and request the lower court to continue the trial. Some courts believe that virtual currency is an illegal subject matter, while others recognize that mining machines are not illegal items. Some courts do not recognize the contract of quantitative transaction of investment with guaranteed principal and guaranteed income, and the loss must be borne by oneself; some courts consider that although the contract of guaranteed principal and income guaranteed is invalid, the compensation agreement signed voluntarily by both parties after financial management should be valid. Even though there are still some cases of different judgments in various courts, with the introduction of the new regulations, the judgment trend of most courts is that the legal protection of currency-related cases is significantly weakened.

The following is a summary of the existing judgments citing the new regulations. For the convenience of reading, the “Notice on Preventing Bitcoin Risks” is abbreviated as “Notice”, and the “Notice on Preventing Token Issuance and Financing Risks” is abbreviated as “Notice”. 94 Announcement”, referred to as “924 Announcement” for the “Notice on Further Preventing and Disposing of Hype Risks in Virtual Currency Transactions”.

This article mainly shares the judicial cases that cited the 924 notice and judged that ” the activities involved are illegal financial activities and do not fall within the scope of legal acceptance of civil litigation, so the prosecution is dismissed “. The remaining content will continue to be shared in the next two days.

I. Typical Cases of “Dismissal of Prosecution”

Chen Mou, Yang Moumei entrusted contract dispute case, (2021) Qian 01 Min Zhong No. 7896 Civil Ruling

In August 2019, the plaintiff transferred 300,000 yuan to the defendant through bank transfer. The two parties reached an oral agreement, and the plaintiff entrusted the defendant to help purchase digital currency. On the same day, the defendant transferred 50,000 yuan of the 300,000 yuan to the plaintiff, and 200,000 yuan to the outsider, and opened three Huobi APP accounts for the plaintiff, and informed the plaintiff through WeChat to buy 100,000 yuan of LTC (Litecoin) and 150,000 yuan of ETH. (Ethereum). In September 2019, the plaintiff withdrew and sold 12.680995 ETH coins and 21.3 LTC coins on the Huobi APP opened by the defendant on his behalf, and received a total of 26,475.24 yuan. In September 2019, the plaintiff sued the court after requesting the defendant to return the investment principal through WeChat to no avail.

The court of first instance held that the plaintiff and the defendant, through negotiation, reached an oral agreement that the plaintiff entrusted the defendant to purchase digital currency on their behalf, and the plaintiff had paid the payment for the purchase of digital currency to the defendant through bank transfer according to the oral agreement . The de facto entrustment contract relationship  The plaintiff’s request to terminate the entrustment contract relationship with the defendant is supported by the law. Regarding the plaintiff’s claim to request the defendant to return the investment funds and pay the interest, according to Article 97 of the Contract Law, “If the contract has not been performed, the performance shall be terminated; if the performance has been performed, the parties may request restoration of the original state according to the performance and the nature of the contract. , take other remedial measures, and have the right to demand compensation for losses”, the entrusted contract relationship involved in the case was terminated due to the defendant’s reasons, so the plaintiff’s claim is in line with the law, and the court supports it. However, because the court did not accept the defendant’s opinion that ICC gave the plaintiff nearly 30,000 yuan in dividend income, the plaintiff’s 26,475.24 yuan from selling ETH coins and LTC coins should be regarded as the defendant’s return to the plaintiff’s investment funds. Therefore, the court found that the defendant should return the plaintiff’s investment amount of 223,524.76 yuan and calculate the interest based on this, and the part higher than the amount of 223,524.76 yuan should not be supported.

Accordingly, it was decided to terminate the entrustment contract between the plaintiff Yang Moumei and the defendant Chen Mou; the defendant Chen Mou returned the plaintiff Yang Moumei’s investment of RMB 223,524.76 and paid interest.

The facts found in the second instance were consistent with those in the first instance, and the court of second instance held that illegal debts were not protected by law. The Huobi, Litecoin, and Ethereum coins involved in the case are online virtual currencies. According to the “924 Notice”, virtual currency-related business activities are illegal financial activities. There are legal risks involved in virtual currency investment and trading activities, and the resulting losses shall be borne by them. Accordingly, it was ruled to revoke the civil judgment (2020) Qian 0102 Min Chu No. 6793 of the People’s Court of Nanming District, Guiyang City, Guizhou Province; the lawsuit of Yang Moumei was dismissed.

Liu Moupan and Yan Moubin Dispute over Unjust enrichment, (2021) Civil Ruling No. 5415 Zhejiang 0781 Minchu

The plaintiff, Liu Moupan, was recommended by a forum post to purchase the digital currency USDT in the Ping An Yitou digital currency APP in September 2019, and the recharge method was offline recharge of the APP. The platform customer service claimed that the defendant was a special merchant under its platform and could buy from the defendant, so the plaintiff transferred the 224,000 yuan in 8 transactions to the defendant’s bank account by bank card transfer. When the plaintiff verified the digital balance of the account, it was found that the defendant did not recharge the same amount of digital currency into the plaintiff’s account, so the plaintiff contacted the APP customer service of the Ping An Yitou digital currency platform. The defendant’s contact information was also provided for the plaintiff to handle by himself. The plaintiff repeatedly contacted the defendant to no avail. Therefore, the plaintiff’s request for a third-party Ping An Yitou digital currency platform to contact the defendant to explain the situation was unsuccessful, and had to sue the other party.

The court held that illegal debts were not protected by law. According to the “924 Notice”, virtual currency does not have the same legal status as legal tender, and related business activities of virtual currency are illegal financial activities. There are legal risks in participating in virtual currency investment and trading activities. Any legal person, unincorporated organization or natural person investing in virtual currency and related derivatives violates public order and good customs, and the relevant civil legal acts are invalid, and the resulting losses shall be borne by themselves. Therefore , the plaintiff’s lawsuit does not fall within the scope of the people’s court to accept civil lawsuits , so the plaintiff’s lawsuit does not fall within the scope of the people’s court’s acceptance of civil lawsuits, and it should rule to dismiss the lawsuit.

Sun Mouquan, Ma Mou custody contract dispute case, (2021) Su 03 Min Zhong No. 10698 Civil Ruling

The court of first instance found that: in August 2017, Sun Mouquan paid 9 times to Beijing Yunbi Technology Co., Ltd. Sun Mouquan said: The relevant funds were used for the purchase of virtual currencies such as the virtual currency. After that, Yunbi.com developed by Beijing Yunbi Technology Co., Ltd. was closed. Ma knew how to operate after that, so he handed the coin to Ma; during this process, Ma sold part of it and transferred the money to Sun Quan.

The court of first instance held that the dispute involved in the case was caused by the transaction and circulation of virtual currency. According to the requirements of the “924 Notice”, virtual currency is not legally compensable and should not and cannot be used as currency in the market. Any legal person, unincorporated organization or natural person investing in virtual currency and related derivatives violates public order and good customs, and the relevant civil legal acts are invalid, and the resulting losses shall be borne by themselves. Therefore, the relevant disputes are not within the scope of civil litigation cases , and this court will not accept the plaintiff’s lawsuit and ruled to dismiss Sun Mouquan’s lawsuit.

The court of second instance held that the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations are protected by law. In this case, the “924 Notice” has made it clear that virtual currency is an illegal financial activity and cannot be used as currency in the market. Based on this, the court of first instance determined that the dispute involved in the case did not fall within the scope of civil cases accepted by the people’s court, and ruled that It is not inappropriate to dismiss Sun Mouquan’s prosecution. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the original ruling was upheld.

Tang Mouhu and Liu Moushan Contract Dispute Case, (2021) Yu 0304 Min Chu No. 1822 Civil Ruling

On May 19, 2021, the defendant drew up an entrustment agreement with the plaintiff, and signed a contract in Room 111, Tianyuan Villa, Changning District, Shanghai, and pledged assets worth USD 1 million to each other. The plaintiff entrusted the defendant with a mining machine equivalent to 1 million US dollars, and the defendant mortgaged virtual currency worth 1 million US dollars to Party A. One week after the mortgage, the defendant failed to perform the contract due to the introduction of relevant policies. The defendant also claimed that the virtual currency of USD 660,000 was recovered from the plaintiff, the contract was not fulfilled, the equivalent computing equipment entrusted by the plaintiff was not returned, and all the remaining machines were illegally seized on the grounds that the equipment was traded in. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, the court appealed to support the plaintiff’s claim.

After review, the court held that the “924 Notice” clearly stipulates that “virtual currency-related business activities are illegal financial activities. There are legal risks in participating in virtual currency investment and trading activities. Any legal person, unincorporated organization or natural person investing in virtual currency and related derivatives violates public order and good customs. The relevant civil legal acts are invalid. The “POS Mining Agreement” signed by the plaintiff Tang Mouhu (Party B) and the defendant Liu Moushan (Party A) in this case, Party A gave Party B 1 million virtual currency USDT (Tether) for POS “Mining” is an illegal financial activity clearly stipulated in the “Notice” and does not fall within the scope of civil litigation accepted by the people’s court. To sum up, the plaintiff’s lawsuit is dismissed.

2. Is it reasonable to “reject the prosecution”?

Rejection of an indictment refers to the judicial act of the people’s court, in accordance with the provisions of the Procedural Law, to reject the plaintiff’s indictment when it finds that the plaintiff’s indictment does not meet the legal requirements for accepting a civil case during the trial of a case that has been filed and accepted.

The purpose of rejecting an indictment is to solve the procedural right of action after the case is filed and accepted. It is aimed at indictments that do not meet the legal requirements for acceptance of civil cases, and is mainly applicable to nine situations: the subject is unqualified; the defendant is unclear; There are no specific claims, facts and reasons; it does not fall within the scope of civil litigation accepted by the people’s court; after accepting the case, it is found that it falls within the scope of criminal or administrative litigation; the defendant proposes to have an arbitration agreement; labor arbitration is preceded; the judgment does not allow divorce Divorce cases that have been reconciled with mediation, cases of verdicts and mediations to maintain the adoption relationship, and there are no new circumstances or new reasons, the plaintiff files another lawsuit within 6 months, and the people’s court only finds out after accepting it; repeated lawsuits.

In the above-mentioned cases, the main reason why the court cited the 924 notice to dismiss the currency-related case was that it did not fall within the scope of civil litigation accepted by the people’s court. However, is this reason really legitimate?

According to Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Law: “People’s courts shall apply the provisions of this Law when accepting civil lawsuits between citizens, between legal persons, between other organizations, and between them due to property relations and personal relations. “Theoreticians usually regard this provision as a general provision in the jurisdiction of civil litigation in my country, that is, disputes involving property and personal relations between citizens, legal persons and other organizations should fall within the scope of the people’s court. The above court held that the currency-related cases were illegal financial activities, and the debts incurred were also illegal debts, so they did not fall within the jurisdiction of the court.

The more the society develops and progresses, the stronger the desire of citizens to seek judicial protection, which is in a trend of “rising tide”. On the sensitive issue of the court’s admissibility, the filing of a case is inevitably at the cusp of the storm. From a practical point of view, cases involving illegal debts usually include illegal debts arising from financial investment, and illegal debts arising from loan sharks. It can also be seen from the public judgment documents that these cases have not been rejected by the court. outside. From a theoretical point of view, the cases involved are usually property disputes between citizens or between citizens and legal persons, which should obviously belong to the scope of civil litigation.

We believe that it is unreasonable for the courts to “reject the prosecution” in all currency-related cases. “Law is not the answer to conflict, but a means to channel conflict.” Judicial adjudication is an important means of seeking justice in a society governed by the rule of law. For example, before the facts of the case are ascertained, they directly hold “prejudice” and “big picture view” against virtual currency. , and rejecting disputes outside the door of the law on this ground is really not the correct means to resolve disputes.

Author: Liu Lei

Master of Economic Law, a practicing lawyer of Beijing Yingke (Shanghai) Law Firm, an advanced model of Yingke Shanghai’s “New Decade. New Youth”, and a researcher at the Institute of Artificial Intelligence and the Rule of Law of Gansu University of Political Science and Law.

Practice: Lawyer Liu has represented nearly 100 criminal cases involving digital currency, focusing on legal compliance in new economic fields such as digital currency and blockchain.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/how-does-the-heavyweight-court-cite-924-to-notify-the-judge-of-existing-cases-one/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-03-21 09:08
Next 2022-03-21 09:10

Related articles