Anti-fraud guide and investment and financial analysis, add the WeChat of Anti-Deception Assistant: Fpdlm2022

　　1.

　　2.

　　3.

　　The plaintiff Zhao Xizhi claimed that on the evening of April 19th, 2020, the defendant Gao Xili was at home alone, and transferred Radar coins to an account without a mobile phone number, which was unsafe and unsuccessful, resulting in the loss of 176 Radar coins (about 40,000 yuan in RMB), as she trusted the defendant and did not expect the defendant to lose these coins without a trace. During this period, the defendant showed no sign of apology, did not want to return the lost Radar coins, and had a strong and aggressive attitude, attacking her with words, causing her physical and mental harm (often insomnia and palpitations) during this period. Therefore, she sued the court, requesting the court to order the defendant to return 176 Radar coins to the plaintiff (176×240=42,240 yuan); the expenses incurred in this lawsuit should be borne by the defendant in full; the interest incurred due to the defendant’s delay in repayment should be borne by the defendant. During the trial, the plaintiff changed the claim, and according to the price on April 19th, 2020, 176×240=42,240 yuan should be 176×280=49,280 yuan; the interest from April 19th, 2020, to January 19th, 2021, is 0.056 Radar coins per day, totaling 0.056×270 days=15.12 Radar coins.

　　The plaintiff Zhao Xizhi submitted the following evidence to prove his claim:

　　1. The list of accounts registered by the defendant for her, proving that the defendant registered accounts for her. She is not good at registering accounts and activating email addresses. On April 15th, 2020, the defendant invited her to the friend’s house of the defendant, and she trusted the defendant very much, so she allowed the defendant to register 12 accounts. The defendant has an objection, claiming that what was written then was not this, and this was not written on that day;sports betting cheats and Latest Address

　　2. One CD (the original carrier is in the phone) and one recording script, and 2020

　　A WeChat chat record from April 20th of that year, and a new account with the number zxtfdc99×××06, prove that the Radar coins were lost due to the defendant’s mistake. The account cannot be logged in, and it is the new account with the number zxtfdc99×××06 that the defendant registered for her. It was discovered at 10 pm that night that the account could not be opened. This account has never been able to log in, and 176 Radar coins have been lost without a trace, and cannot be withdrawn. The defendant has an objection, claiming that the chat records and call recordings are between her and the other party, the account is the plaintiff’s, there are no Radar coins on the account, and it was she who helped the plaintiff transfer them, but the account was provided by the plaintiff to her, and she did not lose it for the plaintiff; she transferred it to the account zxtfdc99×××06.online website sports and Latest Address

　　3. The WeChat chat records prove that the account is unsuccessful. The defendant claims it is true;

　　4. WeChat chat records prove that the new account has not been bound with a mobile number. The defendant claims that it is true;entrance lottery entranceClick to enter

　　5. WeChat chat records from April 20, 2020, prove that the defendant lost the coins. The defendant claims that it is their chat records, and the content is true.

　　The defendant, Gao Xili, argues that she disagrees with the plaintiff’s claims. She helped the plaintiff transfer RadarCoin from the original account (outgoing account) to the new account (incoming account), and whether it is the original account or the new account, it is provided by the plaintiff, and the account is also the plaintiff’s own. She only helped transfer the coins and has already completed the transfer. There were no faults or major negligence in the process, and she is not responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the loss or returning the RadarCoin. The specific reasons are as follows:

　　Firstly, she only helped the plaintiff transfer RadarCoin according to the plaintiff’s intention, and all other matters were implemented by the plaintiff, which had nothing to do with her. The plaintiff stated in the complaint that the defendant transferred RadarCoin to an account without a mobile number set up, which was unsafe and unsuccessful, resulting in the loss of 176 RadarCoins. This statement is completely false. Firstly, she transferred RadarCoin at the plaintiff’s request, and she was just helping. If the plaintiff had not repeatedly asked her for help, she would never have主动 gone to transfer the plaintiff’s RadarCoin. Moreover, the process of transferring RadarCoin is similar to daily bank transfers, and it must have the account number, password, and verification code of the outgoing account, which cannot be missing. If the plaintiff did not actively inform her of these three items, she would not be able to transfer the plaintiff’s RadarCoin. Now, looking at the plaintiff’s statement, it seems that the defendant transferred the plaintiff’s RadarCoin擅自 at home, which is completely impossible. Moreover, there is no meaning to do so, as she is not transferring the plaintiff’s RadarCoin to her own account.

　　Secondly, the accounts from which the RadarCoin was transferred and the accounts to which it was transferred were provided to her by the plaintiff. Now, the plaintiff again claims that the transferred account is an unsafe and unsuccessful account that has not set up a mobile number. Regarding this, she believes that after the new account is registered, the plaintiff must log in to their own email to activate and bind their own mobile number. From this perspective, whether the account can be logged in and whether it is safe is known to the plaintiff first. In this situation, when the plaintiff provides the account to her, allowing her to transfer RadarCoin to that account, whether the account is safe or successful has nothing to do with her, and she is also unaware of it. Since it is not a successful and safe account, why would the plaintiff still provide it to her and ask her to transfer RadarCoin to it? From her perspective, the transferred account provided by the plaintiff is available, and she should complete the assistance as instructed by the plaintiff. This is in accordance with Article 399 of the Contract Law and Article 922 of the Civil Code: the trustee shall handle the entrusted matters in accordance with the instructions of the entrustor. She transferred RadarCoin from the outgoing account to the incoming account as instructed by the plaintiff, which was acting in accordance with the plaintiff’s instructions and had no faults or major negligence. There is evidence of the plaintiff’s and her WeChat chat records to prove that the plaintiff provided her with the transferred account.

　　Secondly, she has completed the transfer of Radar coins as instructed, and the inability to log in to the incoming account is not related to her, nor is it related to the transfer of Radar coins.

　　On the day of the incident, she followed the plaintiff’s instructions and transferred approximately 176 Radar coins from the plaintiff’s original account (the outgoing account) 99×××99 to the new account (the incoming account) 99×××09 provided by the plaintiff. The new account 99×××06 could not be logged in the day after the transfer, which is what the plaintiff referred to as the unsafe and unsuccessful account in this case. As mentioned in the previous point, the new account receiving Radar coins is like the receiving account in bank transfers, which only requires the account number and does not require a password and verification code like the outgoing account. Therefore, as long as the plaintiff provided her with the incoming account number, outgoing account number, password, and verification code of the outgoing account, she could complete the transfer of Radar coins. As for why the new account 99×××06 could not be logged in, this can only be asked of the plaintiff. Moreover, the inability to log in to the account is not related to whether the Radar coins are lost, and the plaintiff must provide evidence that the Radar coins are lost and the reason for the loss is related to her, otherwise it is a groundless lawsuit.

　　What is more important is that when the plaintiff registered a new account 99×××02 on May 2, 2020, it could be seen that there were 177 Radar coins in the associated account 99×××06. This is enough to prove that on the evening of April 19, 2020, her assistance in transferring Radar coins was successful, as 176 Radar coins had already been transferred to the account 99×××06 involved in this case. Up to this point, her assistance has been completed, and screenshots of the account sent by the plaintiff can confirm this. There is no reason for the plaintiff to demand the return of her Radar coins and bear interest for a successful and completed assistance. Whether there are 176 Radar coins in the account now is no longer related to her, as she has not touched the plaintiff’s account since April 19, 2020.

　　In summary, according to Article 406 of the Contract Law or Article 929 of the Civil Code, in the case of a gratuitous entrusted contract, the trustee shall bear the liability for the loss caused to the entrustor only if there is intentional or gross negligence. From her defense above, it can be seen that she has no intentional or grossly negligent behavior, nor any fault, so she has no obligation and responsibility to compensate for the plaintiff’s claims. The defendant hopes that the People’s Court will effectively protect her legitimate rights and interests from infringement and reject the plaintiff’s lawsuit in accordance with the law.

　　To prove her claims, the defendant Gaoli Li submitted the following evidence to the court:

　　The WeChat chat records prove that it was the plaintiff who asked her to help register the account and transfer the disputed radar coins, and she would only help transfer once. The plaintiff claimed that this was true.

　　During the trial, the court organized both parties to present and authenticate evidence, and recognized the evidentiary force of the evidence on which there was no objection; for the parts with objections, the court recognized them after review.

　　After investigation, it is found that the plaintiff Zhao Xizhi learned about the radar coin investment product from the defendant Gaoli Li through an introduction by her friend Fuxi Li. On April 15, 2020, the defendant helped the plaintiff register 12 radar coin accounts and bound the plaintiff’s mobile phone number. On the evening of April 19, 2020, the plaintiff Zhao Xizhi entrusted the defendant Gaoli Li to register new accounts for free. The defendant registered new radar coin accounts for the plaintiff as zxtfdc99901-zxtfdc99909. Among them, the account zxtfdc99×××06 was not bound to the plaintiff Zhao Xizhi’s mobile phone number. The plaintiff requested the defendant to transfer 176 radar coins from his account zxtfdc9996 to the account zxtfdc99×××06. The defendant completed the plaintiff’s entrusted transfer matter by his own operation. In the first trial record on the eighth page, the defendant admitted that the account zxtfdc99×××06 was not bound to the plaintiff’s mobile phone number. In the seventh page of the first trial record, the defendant admitted that the account registered for the plaintiff was not successful, which was true. In the sixth page of the second trial record, the defendant admitted that not binding the mobile phone number had the risk of loss or theft. In the seventh page of the first trial record, the defendant also admitted that the unsuccessful account zxtfdc99×××06 could transfer radar coins, but could not be withdrawn, permanently there, could not be circulated, and could not be used for disposition. On May 2, 2020, when the account zxtfdc99×××02 was activated, it was found that 176 radar coins still existed in zxtfdc99×××06, but still could not log in to zxtfdc99×××06. In June 2020, 176 radar coins in zxtfdc99×××06 were not found, and the displayed records were zero.

　　At the same time, it is learned that Gao Xili has been registering radar coin accounts for others for several years.

　　The court believes that radar coins have the attributes of general goods, with value, utility, and exchange properties, and also possess the basic characteristics of general property. Although they are a type of network virtual property, namely intangible property, the owner of radar coins has the right to possess, use, benefit from, and dispose of their virtual property according to law. According to Chinese law, the principle of civil law that ‘what is not explicitly prohibited by law is permissible,’ the current Chinese law has not prohibited the online casino and how to find it in the transaction in cyberspace, so radar coins, as virtual property, should be protected by law in civil activities. In this case, Gao Xili, the defendant, independently completed the task of transferring 176 radar coins entrusted by Zhao Xizhi.

　　Firstly, the plaintiff Zhao Xizhi entrusted the defendant Gao Xili to register new radar coin accounts, namely zxtfdc99901-zxtfdc99909, and the defendant has been registering radar coin accounts for several years for others. According to the defendant’s own admission, in the case that the plaintiff’s mobile phone number was not bound to the account zxtfdc99×××06, there was a risk that the radar coins involved transferred to this account would be lost or stolen, but the defendant still operated to transfer 176 radar coins from the plaintiff’s account zxtfdc9996 to the account zxtfdc99×××06, resulting in the loss of 176 radar coins in the plaintiff’s radar coin account. Therefore, Gao Xili, the defendant, did not fulfill the reasonable attention obligations of a normal person during the operation process of transferring money for the plaintiff, and Gao Xili has committed gross negligence.

　　Secondly, according to the defendant’s own understanding that the unsuccessful account zxtfdc99×××06 registered by the plaintiff can transfer Radarcoins, but cannot be withdrawn, permanently there, cannot be circulated, cannot be used. From this, it can be known that although 176 Radarcoins involved in the case were seen in the activated account zxtfdc99×××02 on May 2, 2020, there was no possibility for the plaintiff to withdraw the involved 176 Radarcoins; at the same time, after the defendant’s involved transfer operation, the 176 Radarcoins transferred into the account zxtfdc99×××06 could not be withdrawn, could not be circulated, could not be disposed of, thereby losing the value and use value as well as the exchange attributes of the involved 176 Radarcoins, even if the 176 Radarcoins exist, they have lost the characteristics of property in legal terms. Moreover, the Radarcoins in the account have been zeroed out, that is, completely lost. According to the fact that the defendant has registered Radarcoin accounts for others for several years, and there is a risk of losing or being stolen Radarcoins without binding the plaintiff’s mobile phone number, the defendant has major negligence.

　　Thirdly, since the transaction and circulation of Radarcoins are carried out through internet trading platforms, and the exchange rate fluctuates in real time, it is difficult to determine the current market value of Radarcoins and the calculation of interest, therefore, the court supports the plaintiff’s request for compensation for Radarcoins and their interest, but does not support the plaintiff’s request for compensation in RMB. The period for supporting the interest of the plaintiff is the period when the plaintiff makes the lawsuit request, that is, from April 20, 2020, to January 19, 2021.

　　In summary, the plaintiff Zhao Xizhi entrusted the defendant Gao Xili to complete the Radarcoin transfer matters gratuitously, but the defendant had major negligence in the process of completing the entrusted matters, causing the plaintiff a loss of 176 Radarcoins and their interest. The defendant should bear the compensatory liability. Therefore, the plaintiff’s lawsuit request is supported by the court in accordance with law. In accordance with Article 396, Article 406 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China and Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Firstly, the defendant Gao Xili shall compensate the plaintiff Zhao Xizhi with 176 Radarcoins within five days from the date of the judgment coming into effect, and at the same time compensate for the interest of 176 Radarcoins from April 20, 2020, to January 19, 2021;

　　Source: Local Anti-Fraud (tcfclm), this is a special thank you to the China Judicial Documents Network!

　　Whether in life or work, it is inevitable to encounter various scams, including emotional traps from online chatting and fraudulent transfer scams pretending to be a leader at work!

　　Some people can see through scams at a glance, while others fall for them out of curiosity! Pay more attention to your elder family members, as they may be suffering from frauds related to pension investment or health preservation!

　　【Fraud Prevention Alliance】Remind you: When faced with something, always consult with your family to avoid impulsive actions that may cause irreversible consequences! Love your family and stay away from traps!