Ainti

A Hong Kong judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a case involving JPEX, stating that cryptocurrencies are considered "property" in Hong Kong

ChainCatcher news, according to Hong Kong media reports, JPEX is suspected of violating regulations by promoting and operating in Hong Kong. The first civil lawsuit involves two plaintiffs seeking to recover 240,000 Tether or 1.85 million Hong Kong dollars from JPEX Group and a total of 7 defendants. One of the defendants, a JPEX registered company in Hong Kong, was absent from last month's hearing. Judge Zhou Zhaowen issued a ruling yesterday stating that the company, as an operator, holds assets and constitutes an express trust but has violated its responsibilities. Particularly, the case of the first plaintiff is evidently strong, thus the judge ordered the company to compensate at the request of the two individuals.According to the statement of claim, the first defendant, a company registered in Australia under JPEX, operates the JPEX virtual asset service and electronic platform. The plaintiffs personally or in their name deposited virtual currency into the platform account, and they request the court to rule that the second defendant has violated good faith and/or must restructure and repay debts. The judge also stated that in many common law jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, courts accept that cryptocurrency is considered "property" and can form a trust.The judge recognized that the two defendants operate a cryptocurrency trading platform, which records the movement of currency between accounts, involving trustee benefits and various agreement terms. Therefore, the defendants, as trustees, violated their responsibilities by transferring assets without authorization.

A dispute arose over virtual currency trading, and the Hunan court dismissed the plaintiff buyer's lawsuit request

ChainCatcher news, according to Legal Network reports, the People's Court of Yuanjiang City, Hunan Province recently heard a dispute case arising from the buying and selling of virtual currency.In this case, Zhou approached his friend Dai, hoping to help him purchase the encrypted virtual currency BZZ for investment. Consequently, Dai, entrusted by Zhou, purchased BZZ virtual currency from Zheng and sent the virtual currency to Zhou's imtoken wallet. However, after some time, Zhou sued Zheng in court, demanding the return of the funds he used to purchase BZZ virtual currency, amounting to 76,518 yuan, and payment for the funds' occupation fee.After hearing the case, the court held that civil subjects engaging in civil activities must not violate legal provisions and must not go against public order and good customs. BZZ is a type of network virtual currency similar to Bitcoin, which does not have legal tender status and should not and cannot be circulated as currency in the market. Activities related to virtual currency are considered illegal financial activities, and citizens participating in virtual currency transactions must bear their own investment risks. The entrusted transactions, management, and related refund actions concerning BZZ among Zhou, Zheng, and Dai are currently not protected by law in our country, and the consequences of such actions should be borne by themselves. Zhou's request for Zheng to return the funds used to purchase BZZ virtual currency, amounting to 76,518 yuan, and to pay the funds' occupation fee lacks factual and legal basis, thus the court ultimately ruled to dismiss Zhou's lawsuit.
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovators