Hunan

Hunan Anhua: EDA project suspected of pyramid scheme, its funding mainly relies on suspicious virtual currency trading platforms for payments

ChainCatcher news, according to the Anhua Public Account, the EDA project that has emerged in the city has attracted significant attention. Investigations have revealed that there are major financial risk hazards, and citizens are urged to remain vigilant.It is reported that the EDA project claims to be launched by Hong Kong EDA Group Holdings Limited, promoting its business under the guise of "cross-border e-commerce and logistics companies" and other entities' traffic popularity. Members are required to pay an entry fee to purchase popular traffic to become "new recruits," with the value of popular traffic equivalent to the value in RMB.The project currently relies mainly on overseas or uncertainly secure virtual currency trading platforms for payments. The platform's funds are characterized by instability and difficulty in regulation. In the event of financial fraud or money laundering and other illegal activities, it will be difficult for the public to protect their rights.Analysis shows that the payment channels, operating model, and reward system of the EDA project have suspected pyramid scheme characteristics, posing significant financial risk hazards. Relevant departments will continue to closely monitor and take strong measures to combat such illegal activities.

Hunan court rules that the virtual currency "mining machine" trading contract is invalid, and the related losses shall be borne by both parties

ChainCatcher news, according to Hong Wang reports, the People's Court of Jiahe County, Hunan Province recently made a ruling on a major dispute over a mining machine transaction. The case shows that the plaintiff, Pan Mouxiang, communicated with the defendant, Lei Moucai, via WeChat in November 2021 to purchase Bitcoin mining machines S19XP. After paying 23.678 million USDT, the two parties had a disagreement over the nature of the contract and the settlement price. The plaintiff requested the defendant to return the price difference of 6.27 million USDT and continue to deliver 149 mining machines.The court ruled to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims based on two main reasons: first, according to the central bank and other departments' "Notice on Further Preventing and Dealing with Risks of Virtual Currency Trading and Speculation," USDT and other virtual currencies do not have the status of legal tender, and related transactions are considered illegal financial activities.Secondly, based on the National Development and Reform Commission's "Notice on Rectifying Virtual Currency 'Mining' Activities," the energy consumption of mining activities is high, carbon emissions are significant, and economic contributions are low, which does not align with the national green development strategy. The court determined that the transaction contract was invalid due to violations of laws and regulations as well as public order and good customs, and the related losses would be borne by both parties.

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.

A man in Changsha, Hunan spent 1.65 million to rent a server for "mining" and was scammed

ChainCatcher news reports that the Intermediate People's Court of Changsha City, Hunan Province, has released a typical case involving the environmental resource trial of virtual currency "mining."The plaintiff, Luo, signed three contracts with the defendant, a company in Hunan. The contracts stipulated that the defendant company would provide Luo with 5 servers for a total price of 1.65 million yuan; the defendant company promised that the "mining" profits would not be lower than the average level across the network, and if any penalties were incurred due to technical issues, the company would bear the corresponding losses. After the contracts were signed, Luo paid the actual owner of the defendant company, Fan, 1.65 million yuan in installments as required by the contract. However, Fan and his company failed to deliver the server equipment and software system to Luo, nor did they provide any investment returns as promised. Luo filed a lawsuit in court seeking to terminate the contract and claim damages.The Tianxin District Court of Changsha City determined that the contracts signed by both parties were invalid due to violation of public order and good morals. The defendant company incurred a cost of 60,000 yuan for renting cabinets from an external company, and considering that both parties were at fault regarding the invalidity of the contract, this loss should be borne equally by both parties, resulting in each party bearing 30,000 yuan. The defendant company in Hunan had received 1.65 million yuan from the plaintiff and should return 1.62 million yuan to the plaintiff; defendant Fan is jointly liable for the payment obligations of his company in Hunan; and Luo's other claims were dismissed.
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovators