Tian Xiaowan / Article Since 2024, the price of Online casino and How to find it represented by Bitcoin has been on the rise. In March, the price of Bitcoin approached the 74,000 US dollar mark and then turned sharply downward, continuing to fall. Since the appearance of Bitcoin, various Online casino and How to find it have emerged continuously. Although China has adopted strict administrative regulatory measures for such Online casino and How to find it, it has been unable to stop the enthusiasm of the general public for investing in Online casino and How to find it, and a large number of civil and commercial disputes have arisen around Online casino and How to find it in practice. The purpose of this article is to analyze the裁判 rules and judicial relief paths for civil disputes over Online casino and How to find it.

　　The Online casino and How to find it discussed in this article mainly refers to decentralized Online casino and How to find it based on blockchain technology such as Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Tether (USDT).

　　Is Online casino and How to find it legal property in our country?

　　There are many controversies about the property attributes of Online casino and How to find it, some people believe that Online casino and How to find it does not have the property attributes in the legal sense and does not belong to the category of ‘property’ protected by law; others believe that Online casino and How to find it has property attributes and should be protected by law. The author agrees with the view that ‘Online casino and How to find it has property attributes’, mainly for the following reasons:

　　1. The current legal policies do not deny the property attributes of ‘Online casino and How to find it’.

　　Since 2013, China has mainly issued the following legal policies for Bitcoin and other ‘Online casino and How to find it’.

　　The above legal policy documents reflect that China’s control over ‘Online casino and How to find it’ is still tightening day by day. However, even in this case, China has not directly designated ‘Online casino and How to find it’ as illegal goods, nor has it directly denied its property attributes.

　　At the same time, the above legal policies have not completely prohibited the trading activities of ‘Online casino and How to find it’. The ‘Notice on Further Preventing and Handling Risks of Speculative Trading of ‘Online casino and How to find it’ stipulates that ‘any legal person, unincorporated organization, and natural person who invests in ‘Online casino and How to find it’ and related derivative products, and violates public order and good customs, the relevant civil legal acts are invalid’. This means that the investment activities of ‘Online casino and How to find it’ themselves do not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, but only when they violate public order and good customs will they be deemed invalid.sports betting victoryClick to enter

　　2. Judicial cases do not completely deny the legitimate property attributes of ‘Online casino and How to find it’.

　　In the case of Li Moumou and Bu Moumou vsonline lottery online online casinoClick to enter. Yan Moumou, Li Moumou and others on the property damage compensation dispute, the First Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai believed that due to the characteristics of Bitcoin such as value, rarity, and controllability, it has the characteristics of a subject of rights and meets the constituent requirements of virtual property. The People’s Bank of China and other ministries have issued documents such as

　　In the case of Li Mou’s theft – using technical means to steal others’ Bitcoin constitutes theft, the Intermediate People’s Court of Shangrao Area (City) in Jiangxi Province believes that the ‘Notice on Further Preventing and Handling the Risks of Speculation and Trading of Online casino and How to find it’ issued by the People’s Bank of China, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and other departments only negates the legal status of Online casino and How to find it as a legal currency, but not directly negates the property attributes of Online casino and How to find it. Both in criminal law theory and judicial practice, there are goods that are explicitly prohibited by our laws but can be objects of property crime.

　　3. A large number of illegal acquisition of Bitcoin behaviors have been identified by the court as property crimes

　　In the case of Li Mou’s theft, the Intermediate People’s Court of Shangrao Area (City) in Jiangxi Province determined that the defendant Li Mou’s use of technical means to steal others’ Bitcoin constitutes theft. In addition, there are also many cases [4] that regard the defendant’s theft of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other Online casino and How to find it as theft, which means that the court regards Bitcoin as the object of property crime, and thus recognizes the property attributes of Online casino and How to find it.

　　II.裁判 rules and legal risks of civil disputes involving Online casino and How to find it

　　In judicial practice, civil disputes involving Online casino and How to find it are mostly contract disputes. Courts generally hold a negative attitude towards sales contracts, agency investment contracts, investment contracts, and loan contracts involving Online casino and How to find it and ‘mining machines’, but there are also different views among courts in different regions.

　　(1) Loans contracts involving Online casino and How to find it

　　1. Some courts believe that the lending behavior involving Online casino and How to find it is not protected by law

　　Some courts believe that loans contracts involving Online casino and How to find it are transactions related to Online casino and How to find it, and such behavior is not protected by law.

　　online casino victory，We need you

　　In the civil loan dispute case between Xue Moumou and Jiang Mou, the Futian District People’s Court of Shenzhen believed that illegal debts are not protected by law. According to the

　　2. Some courts recognize the legality of the Online casino and How to find it lending behavior.

　　In the civil loan dispute case between Chang Mou and Xiong Mou, the Beijing Haidian District People’s Court recognized the legality of the loan agreement between Chang Mou and Xiong Mou surrounding Bitcoin: although Xiong Mou claimed that he had not received the loan provided by Chang Mou, the evidence in the case shows that Chang Mou sent 500ETH (Ethereum) to the

　　The aforementioned judgment was made before the issuance of the ‘Notice on Rectifying Online Casino and How to Find It ‘Mining’ Activities’ and the ‘Notice on Further Preventing and Handling Risks of Speculation and Manipulation in Online Casino and How to Find It Transactions’. At that time, the state had not increased its control over Online Casino and How to Find It, and therefore, the Haidian District People’s Court regarded Ethereum as a subject of transaction under contract law. However, even after the issuance of the aforementioned tightening of control notices, the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court still supported the legality of Online Casino and How to Find It loan contracts.

　　In the case of Ding Mou and Zhai Mou’s dispute over the return of property, both the first-instance and second-instance courts have recognized that Litecoin is a type of network virtual property and should be protected by law. First, civil disputes arising from legal facts before the implementation of the Civil Code should be governed by the laws and judicial interpretations of that time, except where the law or judicial interpretations provide otherwise. Article 127 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: ‘Where the law provides for the protection of data and network virtual property, such provisions shall apply.’ Therefore, the law holds a positive attitude towards the protection of network virtual property. Second, Litecoin is a type of network virtual property and should be protected by law. The Litecoin obtained by Ding Mou through borrowing should be returned to Zhai Mou. Civil disputes arising from legal facts before the implementation of the Civil Code should be governed by the laws and judicial interpretations of that time, except where the law or judicial interpretations provide otherwise. Article 6 of the Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that ‘where a person infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others due to negligence, such person shall bear tort liability.’ Paragraph 4 of Article 15, first paragraph of the Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that the main methods of assuming tort liability include: ‘… (four) return of property; … (six) compensation for losses …’. Based on the promissory note, receipt, WeChat chat records, and statements of the parties, it can be determined that Ding Mou obtained the Litecoin held by Zhai Mou through borrowing. Ding Mou also made a promise regarding the return time. However, Ding Mou has now refused to return the Litecoin, infringing upon Zhai Mou’s property rights and civil rights. At the same time, the court ruled in favor of Zhai Mou’s claim for the return of 33,000 Litecoin.

　　In the case of the dispute over the sale and purchase contract between Sichuan XX Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou XX Co., Ltd., the Intermediate People’s Court of Guangzhou believed that: Regarding the validity of the contract involved. On September 4, 2017, the People’s Bank of China and seven other departments jointly issued the

　　In the case of the dispute over the sale and purchase contract involving Hu Mou and Wang Mou, the Jingyan County People’s Court of Sichuan Province held that the transaction of ‘mining machines’ involved in the original and defendant parties in this case is actually special computer equipment for ‘mining’ (mining ‘bitcoin’) on the Internet. The plaintiff purchased ‘mining machines’ with the purpose of producing Online casino and How to find it through the purchase of special ‘mining machines’. Such ‘mining’ activities have high energy consumption and carbon emissions, which are not conducive to the optimization of the national industrial structure, energy conservation and emission reduction, and are also not conducive to achieving the goals of peak carbon dioxide emissions and carbon neutrality, and are not conducive to saving resources and protecting the ecological environment. Moreover, the risks of false assets, business failure, and investment speculation in the production and trading links of Online casino and How to find it are prominent, which are detrimental to public interest. Despite being aware of the social harm of ‘mining’ and the explicit ban on related transactions by relevant departments, the plaintiff still continued to purchase ‘mining machines’ for ‘mining’. The agreement formed between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the purchase of ‘mining machines’ should be invalid due to its harm to public interest and its adverse effects on saving resources and protecting the ecological environment. Subsequently, the Supreme People’s Court included this case in the top ten commercial cases of the national courts in 2022, which also reflects the Supreme Court’s attitude towards the sale and purchase contracts of ‘mining machines’.

　　(III) Cases involving ‘mining’/entrusted wealth management/management/investment contracts related to Online casino and How to find it

　　In cases involving ‘mining’ entrusted wealth management/management/investment contracts related to Online casino and How to find it, the courts usually declare such contracts invalid on the grounds of harming public interest and violating public order and good customs.

　　In the case of network infringement of virtual property involving Wei Mou and Zhang Mou, the parties jointly invested in XIN coins to obtain returns. Later, due to Zhang Mou deleting the private key, the invested XIN coins could not be withdrawn. Wei Mou and others sued Zhang Mou for compensation for the economic losses caused by the loss of XIN coins. The Guangzhou Internet Court held that XIN coins do not have the legality of legal currency. The investment transaction behavior of investors obtaining XIN coins through overseas fundraising and investing to obtain returns violates public safety, disrupts social economic order, harms the public interest, violates public order and good customs, and is not protected by law. The losses arising therefrom should be borne by the investors themselves, and therefore, the court rejected all the claims of Wei Mou and others.

　　In the case of the dispute over entrusted wealth management contracts involving Li Mou and Wu Mou, the Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court held that the parties’ act of entrusting wealth management in virtual currencies, which is explicitly prohibited by the regulatory authorities, violates the mandatory provisions of national financial supervision, constitutes illegal financial activities, and disrupts the national financial order. Their trading behavior, as well as the debts arising therefrom, should not be protected by law due to their violation of public order and good customs, and the investment risks and losses caused thereby should be borne by the investors themselves.

　　In the contract dispute case between Chen and Ma, the Intermediate People’s Court of Guangzhou believed that in the financing of token issuance, the tokens or ‘Online casino and How to find it’ are not issued by monetary authorities and do not have the monetary attributes of legal tender and compulsory nature, do not have the same legal status as currency, and cannot or should not be circulated and used as currency in the market. According to the transaction model described by the parties, Ma, as an investor, paid RMB to the trustee Chen, opened an account for Chen to obtain ‘Online casino and How to find it’, and Chen obtained the so-called natural appreciation of ‘Online casino and How to find it’ in the account. The above transactions belong to the illegal ‘Online casino and How to find it’ transactions prohibited by regulatory authorities, violating the financial management order and mandatory provisions, and the ‘Cooperation Agreement’ between the two parties should be invalid.

　　(4) Contracts involving the development of the ‘Online casino and How to find it’ platform

　　The Supreme People’s Court has distinguished between ‘development behavior’ and ‘operation and use behavior’ of the ‘lottery and How to find it’ platform. In the case of the computer software development contract dispute between Jiangxi XX Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen XX Co., Ltd., Jiangxi XX Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen XX Co., Ltd. signed a contract regarding the ‘Fire XX platform development’, which is mainly used for ‘lottery and How to find it trading’ and ‘currency listing and promotion’. Subsequently, the two parties had a dispute over whether the involved contract was invalid. The Supreme People’s Court held that: Firstly, although the ‘Notice’ issued by the People’s Bank of China and seven other ministries does not belong to the laws or administrative regulations or administrative rules formulated by the National People’s Congress or its Standing Committee or the State Council, its content involves public order and good customs such as financial security, market order, and national macro policies, so it cannot be disregarded simply because it does not have the attributes of law, administrative regulations, or administrative rules. Secondly, from the perspective of the normative object, the ‘Notice’ is a document jointly issued by relevant state departments to prevent specific financial risks, and the normative object is the financing trading behavior and service behavior of using financing trading platforms for token or ‘Online casino and How to find it’. However, the transaction matters stipulated in the involved contract are for Jiangxi XX Company to entrust Shenzhen XX Company to develop the lottery and How to find it trading platform software. Therefore, it should be distinguished between the ‘development behavior’ and ‘operation and use behavior’ of the involved platform software, only the latter belongs to the normative object of the ‘Notice’, while the former does not. Since the transaction matters of the involved contract are not the normative object of the ‘Notice’, the involved contract does not exist in an invalid situation.

　　Third, the difficulties and inspirations of judicial relief for Online casino and How to find it

　　(I) Difficulties in Judicial Relief

　　Through the above cases, it can be found that on the one hand, the financial regulators and courts in our country emphasize that Online casino and How to find it does not have the nature of legal settlement, but on the other hand, they have not denied its property value. This makes it highly uncertain in practice whether the holder of Online casino and How to find it can obtain effective judicial relief.

　　1. The return of Online casino and How to find it has a high degree of uncertainty

　　Firstly, many courts believe that Online casino and How to find it itself does not have real redeemability, and the debts involving Online casino and How to find it are illegal debts, which are not protected by law and do not support the parties’ claims for the return of Online casino and How to find it. As mentioned in the case of Xu Mou and Lin Mou’s civil lawsuit for the return of Bitcoin, the court held that: Bitcoin does not have the attributes of a kind of goods, does not have real redeemability, and cannot be quantified by legal currency. The parties’ lawsuit for the return of Bitcoin does not meet the scope of civil lawsuits accepted by the people’s courts, and the people’s court should reject the lawsuit. In the case of Xue Mou and Jiang Mou’s civil lawsuit for a民间借贷纠纷[16], the court held that: The lending behavior of the parties around Online casino and How to find it disturbed the economic and financial order and violated the public interest. Their actions are not protected by law, and the losses caused thereby shall be borne by the parties themselves.

　　Secondly, even if the court supports the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant return Bitcoin, it is quite difficult in the actual operation process. For Online casino and How to find it, the disposal of it requires the simultaneous possession of

　　2. Currently, the judicial practice in China generally denies the compensation of depreciation.

　　In the first arbitration case for the revocation of a Bitcoin arbitration in China, the Shenzhen Arbitration Court referred to the public information regarding the closing price of Online casino and How to find it at the time of performance of the contract published by the Okcoin website (okcoin.com) and estimated the amount of property loss that the defendant should compensate. The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court held that: The

　　(2) Pre-arranging the value of Online casino and How to find it or obtaining judicial relief

　　In summary, there are significant and insurmountable difficulties in returning Online casino and How to find it. However, for the purpose of valuation compensation, if the parties can agree on the value of Online casino and How to find it and legal currency in the contract in advance, or if the parties reach a consensus on the valuation compensation standard, the court does not need to calculate the corresponding legal currency value of Online casino and How to find it based on pricing websites, or perhaps the court may recognize the conversion between the two. Similar precedents have also appeared in practice.

　　In the case of property damage compensation dispute between Yan Mou et al. and Li Mou et al., in the second instance, the issue of how to determine the standard for the valuation compensation of Bitcoin when the appellant is unable to return Bitcoin to the respondent, was confirmed by the appellant to the court that Bitcoin should be compensated at a rate of 42,206.75 yuan per unit. The respondent also accepted this valuation compensation standard, therefore, the court calculated the compensation amount based on the standard of 42,206.75 yuan per Bitcoin. Therefore, the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court amended the first item of the first instance judgment to ‘Appellants Yan Mou, Li Mou, Sun Mou,岑Mou shall return 18.88 Bitcoin to the respondent Li Mou, Bu Mou within ten days from the date of the judgment coming into effect. If they are unable to return, they shall compensate at the rate of 42,206.75 yuan per Bitcoin.’

　　4. The implementation or impact of the EU MiCA bill on the regulatory measures for online casinos in China

　　On September 25, 2020, the European Commission released a draft of the ‘Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation’ (also known as MiCA). The MiCA bill was unanimously passed by the EU Council in May 2023 and is expected to be promoted and implemented in July 2024 after a transition period of 12 to 18 months.

　　The MiCA bill mainly covers asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, and other crypto-assets. If crypto-asset service providers obtain authorization, they can provide their services throughout the EU. The MiCA bill will undoubtedly enhance the transparency and credibility of the crypto market, effectively protect the rights and interests of consumers and investors, play an effective role in regulating cryptocurrencies, and promote fair competition and innovation.

　　In today’s era of economic globalization, if the MiCA bill is implemented effectively, it will effectively curb the negative impacts of money laundering, asset outflow, tax evasion, and other issues in the crypto-asset field. It will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the legislation and regulation of the global crypto-market field. Assuming that mainstream online casinos such as Tether (USDT), USD Coin (USDC), and mainstream exchanges have obtained the EU’s recognition under the MiCA bill, it will undoubtedly have a significant impact on China’s regulatory measures and judicial policies for online casinos, especially for judicial views on cases involving lending, payment, return, and compensation as targets of online casinos, which will generally shift towards ‘legitimate’ and ‘effective’.

　　Author’s Introduction

　　Tian Xiaowan, a senior joint partner at Beijing Deheheng Law Firm, holds a Bachelor’s degree in Law from China University of Political Science and Law, a Master’s degree in Law from Northwestern University, and a Master’s degree in Finance from Renmin University of China. With educational and practical experience in both Chinese and American legal systems, she holds the TEP (Trust and Estate Practitioners) qualification. She has been engaged in the fields of family wealth inheritance and allocation, cross-border asset allocation, offshore trusts, and immigration and tax resident status planning for many years, and is a driver of the family trust protector business in China.