Guangzhou Court Rules on Cryptocurrency Mining Contract Case: Business is an Illegal Financial Activity and Adverse to Carbon Neutrality, Property Rights Are Not Legally Protected

ChainCatcher news, according to China News Network, the People's Court of Tianhe District, Guangzhou, recently heard a contract dispute case arising from virtual currency mining. The court ruled in the first instance that the contract was invalid, dismissing all claims of the plaintiff and all counterclaims of the defendant. The defendant subsequently appealed, but due to failure to pay the second-instance case acceptance fee within the stipulated period, the case was processed as a withdrawal, and the first-instance judgment has now taken effect.

The court reported that in May 2021, the plaintiff, a certain Tian company, signed a "Strategic Cooperation Framework Agreement" with the defendant, a certain Ma company, agreeing that the Ma company would provide Proof of Capacity (P disk) services for the Tian company. During the service process, the Tian company filed a lawsuit claiming that the Ma company had not completed the P disk service on time and in full, demanding a refund of the service fee and deposit totaling 295,000 yuan.

After hearing the case, the court found that this case involved activities related to virtual currency. Relevant Chinese authorities have clearly pointed out that virtual currency does not have the same legal status as legal tender, and activities related to virtual currency are considered illegal financial activities. Moreover, the mining activities involved in this case consume a large amount of energy and produce significant carbon emissions, contributing little to the national economy, and are detrimental to the optimization of China's industrial structure and energy conservation and emission reduction, as well as to achieving the goals of carbon peak and carbon neutrality. Therefore, the mining contract signed by both parties is deemed invalid due to harming public interests and violating public order and good morals, and the related property rights arising therefrom should not be protected by law; the consequences of the aforementioned actions should be borne by the parties themselves. (source link)