The Beijing First Intermediate People's Court disclosed a Litecoin investment dispute, ruling that the defendant must return the owed assets

Chain Catcher News, the People's Court of Shijingshan District in Beijing and the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court recently made first and second-instance judgments on a civil dispute regarding Litecoin investment, requiring the defendant Ding Hao to return 33,000 Litecoins to the plaintiff Zhai Wenjie.

According to the information, on December 5, 2014, Zhai Wenjie transferred 50,000 Litecoins to the designated receiving address of Ding Hao for fund investment. Ding Hao promised to pay 1,000 Litecoins as interest every month. By April 7, 2017, Ding Hao had returned 17,000 Litecoins, still owing 33,000 Litecoins.

The court held that the IOU and receipt signed by Zhai Wenjie and Ding Hao could prove that a loan contract relationship was established between the two parties. In nature, Litecoin should be considered a specific virtual commodity, which does not have the same legal status as currency and cannot and should not be circulated as currency in the market. However, Litecoin possesses the attributes of virtual property and virtual goods, and should be protected by law.

After the first-instance judgment was announced, the defendant appealed on the grounds that virtual currency investments are not protected by law in China. The Beijing First Intermediate People's Court stated in its second-instance judgment that although relevant legal documents stipulate that activities related to virtual currency are illegal and that investments in virtual currency and related derivatives by legal persons, non-legal persons, and natural persons that violate public order and good customs render the relevant civil legal acts invalid, there are no laws, administrative regulations, or departmental rules that deny the protectability of virtual currency itself as virtual property. Therefore, the first-instance court's determination that the Litecoins lent by Zhai Wenjie in this case have the attributes of virtual property and should be protected by law is not improper, and the court upheld it. (Source link)