According to a civil judgment document of the Jiangsu Province Taizhou Municipal People’s Court, the case number (2020) Su 12 Min Zhong 2907 shows that Radar coins are not protected by law and belong to illegal virtual property.

　　According to the ‘Notice on Preventing and Controlling the Risks of Token Issuance and Financing’ issued by the People’s Bank of China and seven other departments on September 14, 2017, the issuance and financing of tokens refers to the financing subject raising Bitcoin, Ether and other so-called ‘Online casino and How to find it’ through the illegal issuance and circulation of tokens, which is essentially an unauthorized illegal public financing act, suspected of illegal issuance of token securities, illegal issuance of securities, illegal fund-raising, financial fraud, pyramid selling and other illegal and criminal activities.

　　In this case, He Longbing invested in the so-called investment through the purchase of Radar coins for interest by means of Wang Wenmin and Chen Junwei, which is prohibited by our country’s trading scope. The act of He Longbing investing in Radar coins is not protected by law in our country.

　　Let’s take a look at the specific details of this case judgment:

　　Jiangsu Province Taizhou Municipal People’s Court

　　Civil Judgment Book

　　(2020)Su 12 Min Zhong 2907 Number

　　The appellant (the original plaintiff): He Moumou, male, born on September 7, 1965, Han nationality, household registration in Jingjiang City, Jiangsu Province, currently residing in Jingjiang City.online casino plan，We need you

　　Attorney for the parties: Jiang Moumou, a lawyer at Jiangsu Shengdian (Lishui) Law Firm.

　　The respondent (the original defendant): Wang Moumou, male, born on September 29, 1981, Han nationality, household registration in Yixian County, Anhui Province.

　　The respondent (the original defendant): Chen Moumou, female, born on July 3, 1988, Han nationality, household registration in Yixian County, Anhui Province.

　　The joint attorney for the respondents: Huang Moumou, a lawyer at Jiangsu Shuo Yang Law Firm.

　　The appellant He Moumou is dissatisfied with the civil judgment of the Jingjiang People’s Court (2020) Su 1282 Minchu 4281 rejecting the lawsuit and has filed an appeal to this court. The collegial panel of this court has tried this case and it has now been concluded.

　　The appeal request of the appellant He Moumou: revoke the judgment of the Jingjiang People’s Court (2020) Su 1282 Minchu 4281 and remand for further consideration.

　　Facts and reasons:online lottery online online casino and The most fun game

　　Firstly, the first-instance judgment has made a mistake in applying the law. The Jingjiang Court’s application of the ‘Announcement on Preventing Risks of Token Issuance and Financing’ jointly issued by the People’s Bank of China, the Central Cyberspace Administration, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the General Administration of Market Supervision, the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission to dismiss the lawsuit is a mistake in the application of the law.

　　Secondly, 1. The first-instance judgment has made a mistake in identifying the facts. Radar Coin is virtual property, which has the attributes and value of goods, can be disposed of, and can freely circulate in the market, thus possessing the basic attributes of property. Therefore, the People’s Court should protect it. The focus of this case is not whether the investment in Radar Coin has legal basis.

　　2website online casino online website and Latest Address. The defendant has illegally disposed of the plaintiff’s property, infringing on its value. Article 11 (6) of the ‘Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts’ states whether electronic data can be verified through a specific form. If the electronic data submitted by the parties can be proven to be true through technical means such as electronic signatures, credible timestamps, hash value verification, blockchain, and evidence collection, fixation, and anti-tampering, or through the certification of an electronic evidence collection and storage platform, the Internet court shall confirm its authenticity.

　　3. There are relevant cases and judgments in judicial practice regarding the judicial protection of Radar Coin. The first-instance judgment violates judicial fairness and justice. Therefore, the situation where the respondent appropriates the appellant’s Radar Coin and refuses to return it seriously damages the legitimate rights of the appellant. The appellant requests the second-instance court to revoke the original judgment and remand for further consideration of the substance of the case.

　　The respondent’s agent argues that the first-instance judgment applies the law correctly and identifies the facts correctly. The appellant believes that the announcement applied by the first-instance judgment is a part of normative documents, which is issued for unspecified majority of people and specific matters, involving or affecting the rights and obligations of citizens, legal persons, or other organizations, and has universal binding force within this administrative region or its management scope. It is directly cited in judicial practice, including the Jiangsu High People’s Court and the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, and these precedents were all made after September 2020. They should be referred to in judgments.

　　The facts identified in the first instance are correct. According to the said announcement, the nature of Radar coins indeed belongs to virtual property, but according to the said announcement, Radar coins are not protected by law and belong to illegal virtual property. Regarding the precedents provided by the appellant, they cannot be found on the China Judgment Document Network. The amount transferred by the appellant to the respondent is 450,000 yuan. Regarding the 67,134 yuan and evidence submitted, as they are not signed by the respondent, they cannot be used as evidence. The amount transferred by the respondent to the appellant is 837,758 yuan, far exceeding the amount invested. Therefore, the judgment of the first instance should be maintained.

　　He Moumou’s request for the first instance trial: Order Wang Moumou and Chen Moumou to return 2,925 Radar coins to He Moumou and calculate the interest at a monthly interest rate of 3% from January 4, 2020, to the actual return date, with a base of 2,925 Radar coins; bear the litigation expenses of this case.
lottery victory and The most exciting gameplay
　　Facts and reasons: Wang Moumou and Chen Moumou are neighbors, and started promoting Radar coins (Online casino and How to find it) in 2016. In March 2017, He Moumou entrusted Wang Moumou to open a Radar coin account, and on March 29, 2017, Wang Moumou registered an account for He Moumou and informed He Moumou of the account and transaction password, allowing both parties to jointly review. By November 2018, they had reached 700 Radar coins.
online casino download and What is it
　　On November 16, 2018, a transfer of 90,000 yuan was made, and on December 4, 2018, a transfer of 360,000 yuan was made. By January 2, 2020, the interest earned was 2,800 Radar coins, totaling 10,800 Radar coins. In December 2019, He Moumou attempted to log in to the Radar coin account and found that the password had been changed by Wang Moumou and Chen Moumou. On January 3, 2020, after deducting the handling fee, Wang Moumou and Chen Moumou paid 200,000 yuan to He Moumou.

　　On January 6, 2020, a transfer of 637,758 yuan was made. According to the statistics of some Bing, there are still 2,925 Radar coins left with Wang Moumou and Chen Moumou. Both parties are委托关系, Wang Moumou and Chen Moumou, as the trustees, changed the password privately, concealed He Moumou’s Radar coins, and infringed on He Moumou’s property rights and interests. Request the court to rule as requested by law.

　　The first instance court, after review, believes that according to the ‘Notice on Preventing Risks of Token Issuance and Financing’ issued by the People’s Bank of China and seven other departments on September 14, 2017, the issuance and financing of tokens refers to the financing subject raising Bitcoin, Ether, and other so-called ‘Online casino and How to find it’ through the illegal issuance and circulation of tokens, which is essentially an unauthorized illegal public financing act. It is suspected of illegal issuance of token coupons, illegal issuance of securities, and illegal fund-raising, financial fraud, pyramid schemes, and other criminal and illegal activities.

　　In this case, He Moumou invested in radar tokens through Wang Moumou and Chen Moumou in the form of purchasing radar tokens for interest, which is a type of investment that falls within the scope of transactions prohibited by our country. The act of investing in radar tokens by He Moumou is not protected by law in our country.

　　The radar tokens that He Moumou claims to be returned are similar to Bitcoin, Ether, and other so-called ‘Online casino and How to find it’, and are not issued by the monetary authorities of our country. They do not have the characteristics of legal tender and mandatory currency properties, do not have the same legal status as currency, and cannot and should not be used as currency for circulation in the market. The claim for return based on the investment in radar tokens does not fall within the scope of handling by the People’s Courts according to law. Therefore, the lawsuit of He Longbing should be dismissed.

　　According to Article 119, Paragraph 4, and Article 154, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, and Article 208, Paragraph 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: The lawsuit of He Moumou is dismissed. The 13,800 yuan of the first-instance case受理 fee paid in advance by He Moumou will be refunded by the first-instance court; the 3,020 yuan of preservation fee paid in advance by He Moumou will be borne by He Moumou.

　　The court believes that token issuance financing refers to the financing entity raising Bitcoin, Ether, and other so-called ‘Online casino and How to find it’ by means of the illegal issuance and circulation of tokens, which is essentially an unauthorized illegal public financing act, suspected of illegal issuance of token coupons, illegal issuance of securities, and illegal fund-raising, financial fraud, pyramid selling, and other criminal and illegal activities.

　　The tokens used in the token issuance financing are not issued by monetary authorities, do not have the characteristics of legal tender and mandatory currency properties, do not have the same legal status as currency, and cannot and should not be used as currency for circulation in the market. The radar tokens involved in this case are the same. No organization or individual may engage in illegal activities of token issuance financing.

　　Therefore, the first-instance court determined that the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the civil courts of the People’s Republic of China, and directly issued a judgment rejecting the lawsuit, which is not inappropriate. In summary, the appeal of He Moumou cannot be established and should be rejected. According to Article 170, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　The appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld. This judgment is the final judgment.