70,000 yuan of cryptocurrency was defrauded by the platform. The court determined that investment or trading is not protected

Bitcoin has risen recently and returned to the $50,000 mark. This time, some people may want to invest in cryptocurrencies again. However, this investment is very risky. Not to mention the price fluctuations, some people invested 70,000 and were cheated by the platform. It is useless to file a lawsuit because this kind of investment behavior is not protected by law.

The Shandong High People's Court introduced such a case. Yesterday, an article was published on its official public account stating that Ma Mou, introduced by the defendants Liu Mou, Chang Mou and Li Mou, invested 70,000 yuan in principal into the Welland International Encrypted Digital Currency Project (hereinafter referred to as the Welland Coin Project) and signed the "Agreement" on December 24, 2017.

However, on January 17, 2018, after the Payment and Settlement Division of the Business Management Department of the People's Bank of China issued the Notice on Self-examination and Rectification of Payment Services for Illegal Virtual Currency Transactions (Yinguan Payment (2018) No. 11), the Wellecoin accounts opened by Liu, Chang, Li and Ma could not be opened and could not be circulated. Therefore, Ma requested the three defendants to compensate him for his loss of 69,999 yuan based on the "Agreement" signed by the four.

Based on the "Notice on Preventing Bitcoin Risks", "Announcement on Preventing Token Issuance and Financing Risks", "Notice on Conducting Self-Inspection and Rectification of Payment Services Providing for Illegal Virtual Currency Transactions" and Article 8 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China", the court ruled that the Welle Coin in this case is a network virtual currency similar to Bitcoin. According to the notices and announcements issued by the People's Bank of China and other departments mentioned above, virtual currency is not issued by a currency issuing agency, does not have monetary attributes such as legal tender and compulsory nature, and is not a real currency.

At the same time, Ma's act of entrusting three persons, Liu, Chang and Li, to help him register a Wellecoin account and purchase Wellecoin constitutes the delivery of "entrustment behavior" in the sense of civil law, and the two parties form an entrustment contract relationship. However, Ma's act of entrusting three persons to help him purchase Wellecoin is not protected by law in my country, and the "Agreement" signed due to the entrustment contract relationship is also not protected by Chinese law.

The consequences of Ma Moumou's purchase of Welle Coins should be borne by him. Therefore, the court does not support Ma Moumou's lawsuit request.

The court stated that online virtual currency is not issued by a currency issuing authority, does not have monetary attributes such as legal tender and compulsory nature, is not a real currency, does not have the same legal status as currency, cannot and should not be circulated and used as currency in the market, and citizens' investment and trading in virtual currency are not protected by law.