ChainCatcher news, according to the announcement from the Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court, recently, the Beijing Third Intermediate Court and Renmin University of China jointly held a project demonstration meeting for the Supreme People's Court's major judicial research topic for 2024, "Research on the Disposal of Involved Virtual Currencies." Representatives from the Supreme Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, and experts from academia and enterprises attended the seminar.The meeting discussed the disposal paths for involved virtual currencies and the construction of future regulatory systems, emphasizing that research results should be combined with judicial practice to assist national financial security. Zhai Chao, Deputy Chief Judge of the Third Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, suggested that the research should highlight characteristics and meet practical needs. In the future, the research team will deepen investigations and collaborate with judicial and financial regulatory authorities to promote the regulation of virtual currencies and the improvement of judicial adjudication rules.

ChainCatcher news, according to the official WeChat account of the People's Court of Lingling District, Yongzhou City, the People's Court of Lingling District, Yongzhou City recently concluded a dispute over unjust enrichment arising from the failure to repay with virtual currency. In January 2020, Yang transferred 78,000 yuan to Xie via WeChat, hoping that Xie would help him purchase a certain virtual currency on a platform for investment and entrusted Xie to hold it on his behalf. Subsequently, Xie purchased the virtual currency as entrusted by Yang and held it for him. After a period of time, Yang requested to withdraw from the investment, and Xie transferred 3,000 units of the virtual currency to Yang's "wallet address" on the platform, stating that a settlement would be made later.In April 2021, Yang sued Xie in court. Through court mediation, the two parties reached a consensus mediation agreement, and Xie agreed to return 78,000 yuan to Yang in a lump sum. After returning 57,000 yuan to Yang, Xie was unwilling to return the remaining debt, claiming that the 3,000 units of virtual currency previously transferred to Yang were worth over 20,000 yuan and should be deducted from the debt. Yang did not accept this repayment method, and due to the failure to offset the debt, Xie requested Yang to return the virtual currency, but the virtual currency platform had already closed. Xie then sued in court, requesting Yang to return the equivalent cash value of over 20,000 yuan for the 3,000 units of virtual currency.After hearing the case, the People's Court of Lingling District held that the Civil Code aims to protect the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects and maintain social and economic order. The virtual currency does not have the same legal status as legal tender, does not have legal compensability, and should not and cannot be circulated as currency in the market. Xie's request for Yang to return the cash value of 3,000 units of virtual currency essentially constitutes a claim for the exchange between virtual currency and legal tender, which lacks legality, and the parties did not reach an agreement on the compensation amount for the virtual currency. Ultimately, the court ruled to dismiss Xie's lawsuit. After Xie appealed the judgment, the second-instance court upheld the original ruling.

ChainCatcher news, according to a report by The Paper, the People's Court of Wenchang City, Hainan Province, recently concluded a case involving the trading of personal information using cryptocurrency. The court's investigation revealed that the defendant, Han, purchased over 82.24 million pieces of personal information for 500 yuan via QQ in 2021, which included 7.27 million photos of ID cards, 30.69 million vehicle owner information, and 1.07 million bank user information.In March 2023, Han sold this information through platforms such as QQ, WeChat, and Telegram, and collaborated with courier Wu to obtain express delivery transaction information, pricing each piece at 1.5 yuan in USDT. He made a profit of 770 yuan by exchanging through the Ouyi platform. The court sentenced Han to one year and eight months in prison for infringing on citizens' personal information and imposed a fine of 3,000 yuan. Co-defendant Wu was sentenced to eight months in prison with a one-year and four-month probation and fined 2,000 yuan.

ChainCatcher news, according to China News Service, the First International Commercial Court of the Hainan Province First Intermediate People's Court successfully transferred litigation fees to the digital RMB account of the parties involved in a housing sale contract dispute case. This is the first time the court has processed a digital RMB refund for a party from Hong Kong, achieving an innovative breakthrough in the field of litigation refunds for foreign-related cases.In the process of handling the refund for Mr. Gao, the staff of the International Commercial Court of Hainan First Intermediate Court conducted comprehensive research on relevant policy regulations, as well as the specific processes for applying for real-name accounts and court transfer operations with the Hainan Branch of the People's Bank of China. They guided Mr. Gao to obtain a digital RMB real-name account that does not require binding a domestic bank card, ultimately successfully processing the refund using this method.

ChainCatcher news, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court released a white paper on "Balancing Punishment and Governance" in criminal trials, which disclosed that since 2019, over 600 criminal cases related to quasi-financial trading platforms have been concluded. In terms of investment types, the investment schemes in quasi-financial trading platform crimes are diverse and constantly evolving, shifting from initial investments in physical items like stamps and paintings to financial investments such as futures, options, stocks, and foreign exchange trading, and now extending into emerging fields like NFTs (digital collectibles) and digital currencies.From the statistical data, the top three investment schemes by case volume are futures, stocks, and virtual currencies, accounting for approximately 50%, 20%, and 11%, respectively. Criminals often use WeChat public accounts, mini-programs, and live broadcasts to extensively promote so-called "virtual currencies," leading to an expanding range of related illegal information and a continuous increase in the number of victims.

ChainCatcher news, the Civil Court Daily published an article titled "Criminal Qualification of Illegal Theft of Virtual Currency," which points out that the act of stealing virtual currency constitutes theft. As an economic property, it must have value, including utility, scarcity, and disposability. Scarcity is reflected in the constant total supply of virtual currency, which is not infinitely available. Disposability is demonstrated by the use of asymmetric encryption technology for virtual currency, which exists in wallets (i.e., addresses), and once the address and private key are obtained, one can control the virtual currency. Utility is reflected in the fact that virtual currency, as a specific data encoding, must be generated through "mining," which condenses social abstract labor.The article also points out that the act of stealing virtual currency constitutes the crime of illegally obtaining data from computer systems, as virtual currency has data characteristics. The illegal theft of virtual currency constitutes the crime of illegally obtaining data from computer systems. Regarding the determination of the amount of stolen virtual currency, it is more reasonable to set the amount of virtual currency involved in the case at the time the defendant committed the crime rather than when the victim purchased the virtual currency.

ChainCatcher news, the WeChat official account of the People's Court of Yian County, Qiqihar City, Heilongjiang Province, disclosed a case of reselling U coins through a抢单模式 (order grabbing model).The suspect, Wang, used the "U Dock" APP account to resell U coins in an order grabbing model, receiving payments for buying and selling U coins through 11 bank cards belonging to other people. Among these, six bank cards received a total of 564,000 yuan in fraudulent funds, and Wang profited over 60,000 yuan from this, which he squandered entirely.In this case, the defendant Wang was convicted of concealing and hiding criminal proceeds and sentenced to one year and eight months in prison, along with a fine of 15,000 yuan. This judgment has now taken effect.

ChainCatcher news, the People's Court Daily published an article titled "The Judicial Disposal of Virtual Currency Must Be Standardized," which points out that the standardization of judicial disposal of virtual currency is crucial for maintaining financial stability and promoting healthy market development. According to statistics from SAFEIS Security Research Institute, in 2023, the total number of cases involving virtual currency crimes in China was 428, a decrease of 88.9% compared to 2022, but the amount involved surged to 430.719 billion yuan, approximately 12.36 times that of 2022.The article emphasizes that the current disposal of virtual currency faces multiple challenges, including ownership identification, value assessment, and legal monetization. To address these issues, it is recommended to promptly issue comprehensive judicial disposal guidelines for virtual currency, clarifying its legal status, compliance requirements, asset disposal procedures, and legal responsibilities.At the same time, the article calls for strengthening international cooperation to jointly address the global challenges posed by virtual currency, laying a legal foundation for the development of the digital economy and digital finance.

ChainCatcher news, today the Supreme People's Court held a press conference, announcing that the People's Court case database is officially online and open to the public.Lawyer Liu Yang has compiled all cases related to virtual digital currency from the People's Court case database on his WeChat official account. This includes 3 cases involving the search keyword "Tether" (including USDT), 7 cases involving "Bitcoin," 1 case involving "Ether," 8 cases involving "virtual currency," and 1 case involving "NFT" (including digital collectibles).

ChainCatcher news, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court announced a case. In June 2022, Chen registered Company A and developed Platform B to publicly sell a certain digital collectible without an ICP license (Internet Operating License) or any information service record, promoting the collectibles through WeChat public accounts and other channels as limited editions, claiming that investing in this digital collectible would guarantee profits. In July 2022, Platform B launched a certain digital collectible and used promotional phrases like "capital protection buyback, stable appreciation" to deceive investors, selling nearly 30,000 collectibles within a month. Subsequently, Chen opened secondary market trading and inflated transaction prices and market hype through account manipulation and hiring fake reviewers to gather funds. During this period, Chen cashed out over 900,000 yuan from the platform. From October to November 2022, Chen stopped renewing the server and shut down the platform, leaving users unable to withdraw funds or view their digital collectibles.The court found that Chen fabricated facts and concealed the truth to defraud others of property, with the amount being particularly large, constituting the crime of fraud. Chen was sentenced to twelve years in prison for fraud and fined 55,000 yuan.

ChainCatcher news, People's Court Daily published an article titled "Criminal Identification of Virtual Currency Settlement Payment Assistance Behavior".The article points out that virtual currency settlement payment assistance behavior refers to the act of using virtual currency to provide property transfer assistance for others committing telecom fraud. In the criminal identification of virtual currency settlement payment behavior, it is necessary to grasp the characteristics of the criminal proceeds, the demarcation points between upstream telecom fraud and subsequent concealment or hiding of criminal proceeds and their benefits, as well as the influence of the helper's subjective knowledge and the timing and content of "collusion" on the determination of charges, thereby distinguishing easily confused charges.First, determine whether the object transferred using virtual currency possesses the three characteristics of criminal proceeds, namely property nature, criminal illegality, and certainty. Second, use the completed fraud crime as a boundary point to define whether the virtual currency settlement payment behavior is an act of concealing or hiding criminal proceeds and their benefits, or an act of assisting upstream telecom fraud. Finally, it should be determined whether the virtual currency settlement payment behavior constitutes an accomplice to telecom fraud based on whether the helper conspired with others in advance, whether they only recognized that others were illegally using information networks to commit crimes, or whether they knew that others were committing fraud.In summary, there are three scenarios for the criminal identification of virtual currency settlement payment assistance behavior:The first is when the helper did not conspire with others before the fraud was completed, and after the fraud was completed and the fraudster obtained property with property nature, illegality, and certainty, the helper intentionally provided assistance in virtual currency settlement payment, which constitutes the crime of concealing or hiding criminal proceeds and their benefits.The second is when the helper objectively engaged in acts of concealing or hiding criminal proceeds, but formed a mental connection with others regarding the fraud before the fraud was completed, and their behavior should be recognized as an accomplice to the fraud crime; if the helper formed a mental connection with others regarding the implementation of online criminal activities after the fraud was completed, their behavior constitutes the crime of assisting information network criminal activities.The third is when the fraud crime is not completed or the property does not possess the three characteristics of criminal proceeds, but the helper knowingly provides virtual currency settlement payment services for others committing fraud, which should be recognized as an accomplice to the fraud crime; if the helper knows that others are committing online criminal activities but does not know the specific crime being committed, they should be held criminally responsible for assisting information network criminal activities.

ChainCatcher news, the People's Court of Siming District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province published an article in the China Court Newspaper titled "Identification of the Property Attributes of Virtual Currency and Issues Related to the Disposal of Involved Assets." The article analyzes the criminal law attributes of virtual currency, stating that virtual currency has economic attributes and can be classified as property. Current laws and policies do not classify virtual currency as illegal items; therefore, under the existing legal and policy framework, virtual currency held by relevant entities in China still constitutes legal property and is protected by law.The article suggests handling the involved funds and assets from a basic position of legality. For criminal acts involving virtual currency, the involved funds and assets should not be uniformly confiscated or returned. They should be treated differently based on a unified criminal and civil legal order, achieving a balanced protection of individual property rights and social public interests.

ChainCatcher news, the Dongyang People's Court issued a notice on the return of funds in the fraud case involving Zhou Sheng, He Yan, and others. The notice states that based on the effective criminal judgment documents such as Zhe 0783 Criminal First 560 and the information verification registration, the first round of fund return work for the involved funds that have been collected is being carried out. The specific matters are announced as follows: the registration for this fund return work will start from the date of the announcement and will last for 1 month. The recipients of the fund return are investors who have invested in the fraudulent digital currency platforms SIE (later renamed BTUE), CFEX, LKF, GDbit, etc., and have overall losses. The amount of this return is calculated based on the amount of loss and the funds that have been collected, determining a uniform refund ratio.It is reported that this fund return will be conducted through the release on WeChat official accounts, links, and scanning QR codes to enter the APP for information registration, with backend review and confirmation. After passing the review, the payment will be assisted by the Dongyang branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.In August 2019, the Dongyang Public Security Bureau launched an investigation into digital currency fraud platforms such as SIE, CFEX, LKF, and GDBIT, and key members of this fraud group were successively captured and brought to justice. This fraud group fabricated activities related to blockchain technology development, developing digital currency trading platforms through a technical team, forming a complete fraud industrial chain.In September 2021, according to the Zhejiang Procuratorate, all 171 defendants involved in this digital currency fraud series case, with an amount involved reaching 380 million yuan, were tried and sentenced.

ChainCatcher news, the Supreme People's Court announced that starting today, over 3,500 courts nationwide will support the online verification of electronic delivery documents on the Internet judicial blockchain platform (https://sfl.court.gov.cn) or through the People's Court online service mini-program. From now on, every electronic document delivered by the People's Court will achieve verification through blockchain technology.Previously, on May 25, 2022, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Opinions on Strengthening the Judicial Application of Blockchain," which highlighted the use of blockchain technology for the verification of electronic delivery documents as one of its important scenarios to ensure the authority of judicial documents. On December 29, 2022, the Supreme People's Court's electronic delivery documents supported online verification on the judicial chain. (source link)

ChainCatcher news, according to a report by the Legal Daily, Shang Chenglin, the chief engineer of the Information Center of the Supreme People's Court, stated that currently, over 2.6 billion pieces of evidence have been stored on the blockchain platform of the people's courts. The application efficiency and standardization in areas such as evidence preservation, intelligent assistance, and case file management are continuously improving, with application scenarios such as electronic evidence, electronic delivery verification, and anti-tampering being implemented. The Supreme People's Court is further researching the application of blockchain evidence verification, smart contracts, and cross-chain collaboration with the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Justice.It is reported that the judicial blockchain platform is a blockchain alliance initiated by the Supreme Court of China, connecting the blockchains of various local courts across the country. In September 2018, the Supreme People's Court of China issued a new rule recognizing blockchain technology as a legitimate means of collecting tamper-proof data. (source link)

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)