This article takes ‘Online casino and How to find it ‘Mining” as the keyword, sets the time condition to after September 24, 2021, performs advanced search in the legal information database of CCH (Wolters Kluwer), and then selects out the cases without thematic relevance, finally obtaining 37 cases.

　　The trial results of these 37 cases represent the attitude of courts across the country towards the trial of disputes over online casinos and how to find them ‘mining’ after the joint issuance of the ‘Notice on Rectifying the Activities of Online Casinos and How to Find Them ‘Mining’ by multiple departments on September 24, 2021.

　　As can be seen in the figure, such cases are mostly distributed in Sichuan, Guangdong and Shanghai. The economic flow in Guangdong and Shanghai is frequent, and it is understandable that there are many disputes over online casinos and how to find them ‘mining’. The disputes in Sichuan are the highest in the country, indicating that the activities of online casinos and how to find them ‘mining’ in this area may be relatively frequent.

　　Add picture annotation, not exceeding 140 characters (optional)

　　Online casino and How to find it ‘Mining’ although mostly involves civil disputes, but also has many cases of criminal crimes, such as organization and leadership of pyramid selling activities, theft and so on.

　　The statistics of the judgment results of the retrieved cases show that the proportion of fully or partially supporting the first-instance judgments is 36%, the probability of rejecting the lawsuit and rejecting all claims is 18%, the probability of second-instance and retrial is nearly 30%, among which the probability of reversal is 10%.

　　【Related Cases】

　　1. Civil First Instance Judgment on Civil Dispute of Min Shouxiu and Chen Gaiying’s Civil Borrowing and Lending Dispute

　　Case Number: (2021)鄂0691MinChu4287

　　Cause of Action: Civil Loan Dispute

　　Judgment Date: 2022.01.17

　　Trial Court: Xiangyang High-tech Industrial Development Zone People’s Court of Hubei Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that the parties shall fully perform their obligations as agreed. A loan contract between natural persons is established when the lender provides the loan. In this case, the defendant borrowed 40,000 yuan from the plaintiff, which is evidenced by the defendant’s IOU and bank transfer records, and the defendant has no objection to the fact of borrowing 40,000 yuan. The creditor-debtor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has been legally established, and the defendant shall fulfill the obligation to repay the principal and interest of the loan to the plaintiff. Regarding the defendant’s claim that the loan principal of 39,600 yuan and the remaining interest have been repaid to the plaintiff through the transfer of mining machines and EDS coins, the court believes that in the

　　Judgment Result: 1. The defendant Chen Gaiying shall repay the principal amount of 39,600 yuan to the plaintiff Zhao Guanxiu within five days after the effectiveness of this judgment, and pay interest calculated at an annual interest rate of 15% based on a principal amount of 40,000 yuan from March 16, 2021, to July 26, 2021, and from July 27, 2021, to the day the loan is fully repaid, based on a principal amount of 39,600 yuan, calculated at an annual interest rate of 15%; 2. The other claims of the plaintiff Zhao Guanxiu are hereby dismissed. If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the debt interest during the period of delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The filing fee of the case is 800 yuan, reduced to 400 yuan, to be borne by the defendant Chen Gaiying.

　　2. Civil Second Instance Judgment Book of Civil Dispute over Custody Contract between Zhang Men Tian and Xu Huiqing

　　Case Number: (2021) Jin 03 Min Zhong 6305

　　Cause of Action: Dispute over Custody Contract

　　案号: (2021)Chuan33MinZhong292

　　Trial Court: Tianjin Third Intermediate People’s Court

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Composition of the Bench: Chen Chen, Zhai Jing, Zhang Zhen

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that, based on Zhang Men Tian’s appeal and Xu Huiqing’s defense opinions, the key issues of this case are: 1. Whether there is a warehousing contract relationship between the two parties; 2. Whether the losses claimed by Zhang Men Tian have factual and legal basis; 3. Whether Chen Hong should be added as a defendant in this case. Regarding the first争议焦点, when Xu Huiqing and Zhang Men Tian negotiated the matter of entrusting the Bitcoin mining machine through WeChat, Xu Huiqing sent Zhang Men Tian the text of the ‘Equipment Trust Agreement’, with the date of signature and the words ‘representative of Party A, Xu Huiqing’ at the end. After Zhang Men Tian filled in his own signature and sent the agreement to Xu Huiqing, Xu Huiqing did not express any objections. According to the agreement content, combined with the subsequent performance of the contract by both parties, it can be determined that a trust agreement has been established between the two parties. Since a warehousing contract is a special type of trust agreement, the custodian must be a person with warehouse business qualifications. Xu Huiqing does not have such qualifications, so the disputes between the two parties in this case arising from the ‘Equipment Trust Agreement’ should be considered as a trust agreement dispute, rather than a warehousing contract dispute. The court has corrected the cause of action. Regarding the second争议焦点, Article 19 of the ‘Civil Liability for Infringement of the Right of Property’ of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: ‘The loss of property shall be calculated according to the market price at the time of the occurrence of the loss or other methods.’ In this case, Zhang Men Tian claims to calculate the losses according to the purchase price of the equipment involved, but on the one hand, the authenticity and relevance of the so-called original purchase evidence submitted by him cannot be determined, and on the other hand, considering that Zhang Men Tian claims that the unit price of the equipment involved decreased from 5600 yuan per unit at the time of purchase to 3000 yuan at the time of storage four months later, the equipment involved has a significant price fluctuation market risk, and it is more reasonable to calculate the loss amount according to the price at the time of the occurrence of the loss. Zhang Men Tian claims that the equipment involved was a new device at the time of delivery for storage, but Xu Huiqing does not acknowledge this. Since the purchase time claimed by Zhang Men Tian and the actual delivery time for storage are not the same time, and considering the usage method and characteristics of the Bitcoin mining machine, it is impossible to determine the market price at the time of the occurrence of the loss without being able to determine the condition of the equipment involved. Therefore, the court does not approve Zhang Men Tian’s application for price appraisal in accordance with the law. According to the record of the first-instance trial, Xu Huiqing’s statement in the first-instance trial cannot be directly认定为 agreeing to Zhang Men Tian’s claimed value and calculation method of the equipment. Both parties have had several negotiations after the loss of the equipment involved, but have not reached an agreement. There is no legal basis for the so-called late payment loss starting from March 24, 2020. The so-called recoverable interest generated by running the Bitcoin mining machine depends on many factors and has a high degree of uncertainty. Both parties did not explicitly agree on the lawyer’s fees and preservation guarantee fees for the party in breach in the ‘Equipment Trust Agreement’. In summary, the amounts of the losses claimed by Zhang Men Tian lack factual and legal basis, and the court is unable to support them. Considering that Xu Huiqing admitted that before this lawsuit, in the process of negotiating compensation with Zhang Men Tian, he had actively agreed to pay Zhang Men Tian 800,000 yuan as compensation for the lost equipment and recoverable interest, and taking into account the degree of fault of the parties, the nature of property, industry characteristics and other comprehensive circumstances of the case,The court determines that Xu Huqing shall compensate Zhang Mentian for all losses of 800,000 yuan arising from the loss of equipment involved in the case. … In summary, in accordance with Article 107, Article 366, Paragraph 1, Article 369, Paragraph 1, Article 19, Article 169, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, and Article 170, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 19 of the Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 169, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1, and Article 170, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, and Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Applicable Time Limit of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: 1. The civil judgment of the Tianjin Binhai New Area People’s Court (2021) JIN0116Minchu 6373 is revoked; 2. Xu Huqing shall compensate Zhang Mentian for the loss of equipment amounting to 800,000 yuan within ten days after the judgment takes effect; 3. The other claims of Zhang Mentian are dismissed. If the payment obligation specified in this judgment is not fulfilled within the specified period, the debt interest during the period of delay shall be doubled in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The受理 fee for the first instance case is 36,932 yuan, and the preservation fee is 5,000 yuan, of which 29,088 yuan shall be borne by Zhang Mentian and 12,844 yuan shall be borne by Xu Huqing; the受理 fee for the second instance case is 36,932 yuan, of which 29,088 yuan shall be borne by Zhang Mentian and 7,844 yuan shall be borne by Xu Huqing. This judgment is the final judgment.

　　3. Civil Second Instance Judgment of the Civil Dispute over Online Shopping Contract between Lin Qilong, Wang Xinzhang, and others

　　Case Number: (2022)鲁01民终2664

　　Case Type: Information Network Purchase Contract Dispute [Online Shopping Contract Dispute]

　　Judgment Date: 2022.04.07

　　Court: Shandong Provincial Higher People’s Court, Jinan City

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Judges: Li Yaoyong

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Laws provides: “For the facts or reasons upon which a party bases its claims or objections to the opponent’s claims, the party shall provide evidence for proof, except where otherwise provided by law. If a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its claims before the judgment is made, the party that bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.” Lin Qilong appeals and argues that Wang Xinzhang’s purchase of the goods at issue was for the purpose of “Online casino and How to find it Mining”, rather than for personal consumption needs, and should bear the corresponding burden of proof. However, Lin Qilong did not submit direct evidence to prove this, and merely inferred that Wang Xinzhang purchased the goods at issue for “Online casino and How to find it Mining” based on some individual questions consulted by Wang Xinzhang at the time of purchase. The inference is insufficient, and the court does not accept it. In addition, Lin Qilong attempts to overturn Wang Xinzhang’s “consumer” status by arguing that the delivery address of Wang Xinzhang is a company and that the quantity of goods purchased is a basis for this. However, this is without legal basis, and the court also does not accept it. Therefore, the first-instance court applied the relevant provisions of the “Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China” in this case without any impropriety. Lin Qilong also marked the type of goods as new on the webpage where he sold the goods and described the condition as new in the product details, but there was also a description of “like new in work package” in the product details. In the case of contradictions in the descriptions, Lin Qilong, as the operator, should have made a prominent reminder and explanation of the nature of the product, namely “like new”, but he did not do so, and the store customer service did not clearly inform the goods as “like new” or “disassembled product”. Therefore, due to Lin Qilong’s deliberate concealment of true information, Wang Xinzhang made a wrong understanding, and the first-instance court’s judgment that Lin Qilong’s actions constitute fraud and ordered Lin Qilong to bear triple damages in accordance with Article 55 of the “Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China” is also appropriate, and the court maintains this judgment. In summary, Lin Qilong’s appeal cannot be established and should be rejected; the judgment of the first-instance court is clear in its findings of fact and correct in its application of the law and should be maintained. According to Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld. The filing fee for the second-instance case is 3871 yuan, to be borne by the appellant Lin Qilong. This judgment is the final judgment.

　　11. Second Instance Civil Judgment Document on Contract Dispute between Hangzhou Kuang’an Network Technology Co., Ltd. and the sale contract

　　Case Number: (2022) Hu 02 Minzhong 3438

　　Case Type: Dispute over Sales Contract

　　Judgment Date: 2022.03.30

　　Court of Trial: Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Panel members: Yu Hengling, Sun Bin, Chen Qi

　　Judgment Reason: After review, this court believes that parties who file civil lawsuits with the people’s court should have the qualifications as a litigant, belong to the scope of civil lawsuits that the people’s court should hear, and be under the jurisdiction of the receiving people’s court. In this case, the appeal party’s claim of the ‘mining machine’ sale contract related to online casinos and how to find them has a high correlation with the prohibited ‘mining’ behavior prohibited by laws and regulations. This contract relationship is not protected by law and is a matter for relevant departments to clean up and regulate. It does not belong to the scope of civil cases that the people’s court should hear. Therefore, the first-instance court ruled that the lawsuit against Hangzhou Kuang’an Network Technology Co., Ltd. should not be accepted, which is proper, and this court maintains this decision. According to Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1, and Article 178 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the following judgment is made:

　　裁判结果：驳回上诉，维持原裁定。 本裁定为终审裁定。

　　5. Second Instance Civil Judgment Document on Contract Dispute between Chen Yuxiang and Lu Juncheng

　　Case Number: (2022) Zhe 10 Minzhong 352

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　Judgment Date: 2022.02.28

　　Court of Trial: Zhejiang Taizhou Intermediate People’s Court

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Panel members: Xu Zhanping, Lin Qi, Tang Qiangjiang

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that the focus of the second-instance dispute in this case is whether the first-instance court should conduct an entity trial in this case? In response to the above dispute focus, the analysis is as follows: Chen Yuxiang sued the first-instance court for the return of 15 bitcoins from Lu Juncheng, and if they cannot be returned, compensation should be made according to market value. However, the Notice on Preventing Bitcoin Risks issued by the People’s Bank of China, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission on December 3, 2013, and the Public Announcement on Preventing Risks of Token Issuance and Financing issued jointly by the People’s Bank of China, the Central Cyberspace Administration, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the General Administration of Market Regulation, the China Banking Regulatory Commission, and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission on September 4, 2017, strictly prohibit the exchange business between legal currency and Online casino and How to find it , the exchange business between Online casino and How to find it , the purchase and sale of Online casino and How to find it as a central counterparty, and the provision of information intermediary and pricing services for Online casino and How to find it trading, in fact, prohibiting the circulation of Online casino and How to find it including Bitcoin. According to the Notice on Further Preventing and Handling Risks of Speculation and Manipulation of Online casino and How to find it Trading jointly issued by the People’s Bank of China, the Central Cyberspace Administration, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, the General Administration of Market Regulation, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange on September 15, 2021 (Document No. 237), Online casino and How to find it does not have the same legal status as legal currency, does not have legal tender status, and should not and cannot be used as currency for circulation and use in the market. Relevant business activities of Online casino and How to find it are illegal financial activities. Bitcoin, as a virtual asset, lacks a legitimate economic evaluation standard, and the risks arising from the investment and trading of Online casino and How to find it should be borne by the participants themselveslottery platformClick to enter. Therefore, the first-instance judgment determined that Bitcoin, as a virtual asset, lacks a legitimate economic evaluation standard, and this case does not fall within the scope of civil litigation. On this basis, the lawsuit filed by Chen Yuxiang was rejected in accordance with the law, which is consistent with the law, and the court maintains it. In summary, Chen Yuxiang’s appeal cannot be established in accordance with the law, and the first-instance judgment has clearly determined the facts and correctly applied the law.依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百七十七条第一款第一项、第一百七十八条之规定，裁定如下：

　　裁判结果：驳回上诉，维持原裁定。 本裁定为终审裁定。

　　6.路昊与陆斌其他合同纠纷民事二审案件民事判决书

　　案号：(2021)沪01民终16047号

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　裁判日期：2022.02.09

　　Trial Court: Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　合议庭成员：侯卫清、寻增荣、潘春霞

　　裁判理由：本院认为，陆斌与路昊签订《财务顾问协议》，约定陆斌委托路昊管理其lottery and How to find it 账户，托管lottery and How to find it 额度为50BTC，双方根据收益情况按比例分成，路昊承担交易过程中产生的亏损，月收益额25％，保本保息，投资期限为三个月起投，期满续约或解约。上述协议，实际上是以lottery and How to find it 比特币为标的物的委托理财协议，且约定有保底条款，由于标的物不合法，保底条款亦不合法，故该协议应认定为无效。但是，之后双方又签署了欠条，约定路昊就委托理财期间对陆斌造成的严重亏损给与赔偿，赔偿数额为60个BTC，并就分期偿还期限、利息计算标准、逾期未偿还情况下的折价换算标准作出了约定，该欠条系双方当事人的真实意思表示，其内容是针对理财期间所造成损失的结算赔偿约定，具有相对的独立性，《财务顾问协议》的无效不影响该结算赔偿协议的效力，且欠条的内容亦不存在违背公序良俗，故应认定为有效。至于陆斌原托管给路昊的比特币之来源，究竟是“挖矿”取得抑或通过其他交易方式取得，对于本案之欠条的效力认定并无影响。故，一审判决确认欠条之效力，并据此作出的处理结果并无不当，应予维持。综上所述，上诉人路昊的上诉请求不能成立，予以驳回；一审判决认定事实清楚，适用法律正确，应予维持。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百七十七条第一款第一项的规定，判决如下：

　　Judgment Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld. The second-instance case filing fee of 45,440 yuan is borne by the appellant Lu Hao. This judgment is the final judgment.

　　7. Second-instance Civil Judgment on Contract Dispute between Zheng Rongfa, Zhou Jianli, and others

　　Case Number: (2021) Zhe 05 Min Zhong 1202

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　Judgment Date: 2022.01.30

　　Court of Trial: Huzhou Municipal People’s Court, Zhejiang Province

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Composition of the Bench: Shen Yi, Yang Ruifang, Pan Li

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that the main issue in this second-instance case is whether Zhou Jianli should return the 500,000 yuan investment amount involved in the case to Zheng Rongfa and pay the corresponding interest. Regarding this issue, the analysis is as follows: After review, Zheng Rongfa acknowledges that he has conducted a real investigation of the investment project involved in the case and has made oral agreements with Liu Long regarding the return of principal and dividends, and thereafter transferred the 500,000 yuan investment amount into Zhou Jianli’s account according to Liu Long’s instructions. Therefore, the reason put forward by Zheng Rongfa that he only had an investment intention but did not have actual investment in the case is not tenable. In the case where the project involved has not been settled and the creditor-debtor rights and obligations of the investment entities are not clear, the first-instance court did not support Zheng Rongfa’s claim, which was not inappropriate. In summary, Zheng Rongfa’s appeal cannot be upheld and should be dismissed; the first-instance judgment is clear in its findings of fact and correct in its application of the law, and should be upheld. In accordance with Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the first clause of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld. The second-instance case filing fee is 8800 yuan, to be borne by the appellant Zheng Rongfa. This judgment is the final judgment.

　　8. Civil Second Instance Judgment on Civil Case of Dispute over Borrowing Contract between Wang Dong, Wang Tao, and Others

　　Case Number: (2021) Zhe 02 Minzhong 3554

　　Cause of Action: Dispute over Borrowing Contract

　　Judgment Date: December 31, 2021

　　Trial Court: Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court, Zhejiang Province

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Judicial Officer: Wang Yaping

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that the parties are responsible for providing evidence to prove the facts on which they base their claims or the facts on which they refute the opponent’s claims. If there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the party’s factual claims, the party with the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. In this case, Wang Dong claims that there is a borrowing contract relationship between him and Wang Tao regarding Tether (USDT), but he has not provided a written contract regarding the borrowing of Tether (USDT) nor provided other evidence of the parties’ agreement to borrow Tether (USDT). The WeChat chat records of the group named ‘Project Command Department’ show that the WeChat chats among the group members Wang Dong, Wang Tao, Fang Yunfeng, and Xie Sun mainly revolve around the operation of Online casino and How to find it. Fang Yunfeng also expressed opinions such as ‘The project party needs to inject liquidity on just’ and ‘Our two bosses from the capital side are still waiting’. In combination with the WeChat content sent by Fang Yunfeng to Wang Tao on January 9, 2021, which reads ‘Old fragrant, I came today with sincerity, I hope you don’t block me, because I want to do something with you, I’m almost ready on my side, if we talk and have the intention to participate together, let’s turn the tide together’, the first-instance court determined that Fang Yunfeng was not the project introducer as he claimed, but was deeply involved in the capital raising and operation of the Online casino and How to find it project, which does not violate the law. Since Wang Dong did not provide sufficient evidence to prove his claims, he should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence. The first-instance judgment rejecting Wang Dong’s claim is appropriate. In summary, Wang Dong’s appeal cannot be established. The first-instance judgment is clear in its findings of fact and correct in its application of the law. In accordance with Article 170, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld. The second-instance case filing fee is 80 yuan, to be borne by the appellant Wang Dong. This judgment is the final judgment.

　　9. Civil Second Instance Judgment on Civil Case of Dispute over Sale and Purchase Contract between He Hongmei and Others

　　Case Number: (2021) Hu 01 Minzhong 11624

　　Case Type: Dispute over Sales Contract

　　Judgment Date: December 31, 2021

　　Trial Court: Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Judges: He Jian, Ye Zhenjun, Hu Guixia

　　Judgment reasons: The court believes that this case mainly has three controversial issues, namely, the subject of the sale and purchase contract; the validity of the sale and purchase contract; and whether the purchased goods have been delivered. 1. Regarding the subject of the sale and purchase contract. Zhang Hong believes that she was entrusted by three third parties to purchase BSN coins and mining machines from He Hongmei, and the lease commitment letter she signed with XX Company was signed at the request of He Hongmei, which does not change her sale and purchase relationship with He Hongmei. He Hongmei believed in the first instance and on appeal that she was entrusted by Zhang Hong to purchase from the third party XX Company, and the seller should be XX Company; the four parties involved should claim their rights separately from the seller. The court believes that, first, the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which they base their claims or to refute the facts on which the other party’s claims are based. If there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the party’s claim, the party responsible for providing evidence shall bear the adverse consequences. If He Hongmei claims that she purchased on behalf of Zhang Hong, she should provide a written power of attorney issued by Zhang Hong or other expressions of intention to purchase on behalf of Zhang Hong, the receipts and shipments of XX Company, etc., otherwise she should bear the adverse legal consequences. Secondly, Zhang Hong got to know He Hongmei through an introduction and directly negotiated the sale and purchase matters with He Hongmei. Zhang Hong then paid the money to He Hongmei. After receiving the payment from Zhang Hong, although He Hongmei had transferred money to XX Company, the amount of the transfer did not match the amount paid by Zhang Hong (was lower than the amount paid by Zhang Hong), and the entire transaction process could not confirm that there was a principal-agent relationship between Zhang Hong and He Hongmei. During the trial, He Hongmei admitted that she was also investing in Online casino and How to find it, so the money could not be identified as the money transferred by He Hongmei to XX Company. After that, He Hongmei inquired about the number of mining machines and how the coins should be distributed, and when Zhang Hong requested that she control the mining machines, He Hongmei sent the mining machines to him. These actions all indicate that He Hongmei was the seller, and XX Company did not have the intention to act as the seller in the above transactions. Finally, the BSN seed coin mortgage lease commitment letter signed by Zhang Hong and XX Company was Zhang Hong’s lease of BSN coins for collateral mining, which was unrelated to the controversial purchase behavior, and could not prove that the sale and purchase of the mining machines and BSN coins occurred between Zhang Hong and XX Company. The first instance determined that the sale and purchase relationship existed between Zhang Hong and He Hongmei, and the court agreed. Xia, Jiang, and Lü entrusted Zhang Hong to purchase mining machines and BSN coins uniformly and expressed that Zhang Hong would represent the three of them to claim the rights of the seller, which was the three parties’ disposal of their own rights, and the court confirmed it. Therefore, Zhang Hong has the right to claim the shares of the three parties in this case. 2. Regarding the validity of the sale and purchase contract. The court believes that through the WeChat records and the statements of both parties, it can be determined that the subject matter of the transaction between the two parties is BSN coins and mining machines. Mining machines are machine equipment for generating so-called Online casino and How to find it through computer calculations, which have property attributes and can be legally traded, and there is no objection from all parties, and the court confirms it.Regarding the effectiveness of the transaction of BSN coins, both parties hold their own opinions. In this regard, this court believes that, first of all, BSN coins, as an Online casino and How to find it, do not have the attributes of legal tender and compulsoriness like currency, and do not belong to currency. Secondly, BSN coins are rewards obtained by connecting to designated mining pools using mining machines (super computers) and completing specific tasks according to specific algorithms. From the process of their generation, the mining process embodies the labor achievements of humans and has certain value; due to the limitations of their specific programs and algorithms, they cannot be generated indefinitely and have scarcity; after mining, the owner can trade them on specific trading platforms for redemption and can be used and disposed of. BSN coins have the attributes of virtual property and can be traded as ordinary commodities. Finally, as virtual property, the laws and administrative regulations of our country have not prohibited the holding and legal circulation of Online casino and How to find it or tokens, nor have they prohibited normal transactions between individuals regarding Online casino and How to find it. Although the notice jointly issued by the People’s Bank of China and other departments in September 2017 stipulates that any organization or individual shall not engage in illegal activities of issuing and financing tokens, and that token financing platforms shall not buy and sell so-called Online casino and How to find it, the purchase of BSN coins by Zhang Hongmei from He Hongmei and the purchase of mining machines in an attempt to mine more BSN coins for profit in this case do not fall under the circumstances of the notice. Therefore, the contract for the sale and purchase of BSN coins should be valid. The first instance judgment that the sale and purchase of BSN coins is invalid lacks legal basis, and this court is unable to agree with it and will correct it in accordance with the law. Regarding the delivery of the subject matter, Zhang Hongmei believes that she has never received the mining machine, nor has she seen the BSN coins through the escrow instructions or on the APP; He Hongmei believes that Zhang Hongmei and XX Company have signed an escrow agreement, entrusting the mining machine to the mining field, and the BSN coins have been transferred to Zhang Hongmei and others’ accounts through the POC trading platform, and Zhang Hongmei and others have already started mining. In this regard, this court believes that, first of all, in the sales contract, it should be the seller, namely He Hongmei, who provides evidence to prove the delivery of the goods. For the mining machine, although Zhang Hongmei and others did not issue a written escrow instruction document, they actually paid the rent (mining machine escrow fee) to the mining field. When Zhang Hongmei later requested He Hongmei to ‘get my mining machine back’, ‘there are two left there mining TG but not for sale’, He Hongmei then mailed 4 mining machines, and Zhang Hongmei stated that he received 3 and a half, indicating that He Hongmei has actually delivered the mining machines to Zhang Hongmei and others (entrusted to the mining field). Secondly, He Hongmei insists that XX Company has delivered the BSN coins to Zhang Hongmei and others, but Zhang Hongmei and others all stated that they had never received them, and He Hongmei also admitted that the BSN coins had been offline before mining, and the so-called ‘coins’ discussed between the two parties on WeChat from the beginning to the end referred to TG coins. Now there is no evidence to prove that He Hongmei has delivered the BSN coins to Zhang Hongmei and others.This court legally determines that the BSN coin has not been delivered. Finally, the sales contract between the parties is legal and valid. He Hongmei has delivered the mining machine but has not delivered the BSN coin. In view of the fact that the BSN coin cannot be delivered, Zhang Hua and others have requested the termination of the contract and the return of the purchase amount of the BSN coin, which has corresponding factual and legal basis, and this court has granted it. As Li Mou stated that the 61,700 yuan involved (including 22,500 yuan for the BSN coin) is not claimed in this case, He Hongmei should return 227,500 yuan for the BSN coin. As for the mining machine, since He Hongmei has already delivered it, Zhang Hua’s request for a refund lacks legal basis, and the first instance did not support it, and this court agrees. Zhang Hua’s request for payment of interest on the purchase amount also lacks legal basis, and this court is unable to support it. In summary, Zhang Hua’s appeal request is partially justified and should be supported, and He Hongmei’s appeal request cannot be established and should be rejected. According to Article 170, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the first provision of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: 1. Reversal of the Civil Judgment No. (2021)Huhai 0112 Minchu 15465 of Minhang District People’s Court of Shanghai; 2. Termination of the sale and purchase contract between He Hongmei and Zhang Hua Hong; 3. He Hongmei shall return 227,500 yuan to Zhang Hua Hong within ten days from the date when this judgment takes effect; 4. The remaining claims of Zhang Hua Hong are rejected. If the parties who have the obligation to pay money do not fulfill their obligation to pay money within the period specified by this judgment, they shall, in accordance with Article 253 of the

　　Civil Second-instance Judgment Book on Dispute over the Return of Property between Rao Bangkun and Zhao Hua

　　Case Number: (2021)Qian 03 Minzhong 9625

　　Case Reason: Dispute over the Return of Property

　　Judgment Date: 2021.12.24

　　Trial Court: Intermediate People’s Court of Zunyi City, Guizhou Province

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that Rao Bangkun’s act of helping Zhao Hua to operate and purchase 10 Ethereum to buy small mining machines and invest in mining on the BAM platform is ultimately for trading on platforms such as Huobi. According to the

　　Judgment Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld. The受理费 of the second instance case is 60 yuan, borne by Rao Bangkun. This judgment is the final judgment.

　　11. Civil Second Instance Judgment on Dispute over Sale and Purchase Contract between Guotong Asset Management Co., Ltd. and Qiao Hongxu, et al.

　　Case Number: (2021) Jing01 Minzhong 8454

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　Judgment Date: 2021.12.21

　　Court of Trial: Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Composition of the Bench: Liu Guojun, Wang Aihong, Liu Jiajie

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that the ‘Cooperation Agreement on Cloud Computing Site Rental’ between Guotong Company and Zhongshu Company is the true expression of the parties’ intentions and does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and should be valid. Both parties should perform their respective obligations as agreed. The involved contract not only involves the use of the site but also involves electricity approval, and it is for this reason that the two parties were unable to continue to perform the contract. Therefore, the first-instance court’s determination that the involved contract is a cooperation agreement rather than a lease agreement is correct. Now that both parties acknowledge that the involved contract cannot be continued to be performed, the judgment of the first-instance court on the dissolution of the contract is correct. In view of the early investment behavior of Zhongshu Company, the contract cannot be performed now, and neither party has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the other party was at fault. Therefore, both parties should bear the expenses incurred by Zhongshu Company for the performance of the contract. The judgment of the first-instance court that Zhongshu Company should partially refund the performance guarantee paid by Guotong Company is not inappropriate, and the court hereby confirms it. Guotong Company’s request for Qiao Hongxu to bear joint and several liabilities lacks corresponding factual and legal basis, and the court does not support it. In summary, Guotong Company’s appeal cannot be established and should be dismissed; the first-instance judgment is clear in fact and correct in the application of law and should be upheld. In accordance with Article 170, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld. The受理费 of the second instance case is 48,482 yuan, borne by Guotong Asset Management Co., Ltd. (already paid). This judgment is the final judgment.

　　12. Civil Second Instance Judgment on Dispute over Sale and Purchase Contract between Hunan Jinshang Tongda Blockchain Technology Co., Ltd. and Ning Min, et al.

　　Case Number: (2021) Hunan Jinshang Tongda Blockchain Technology Co., Ltd., Ning Min, et al. Civil Second Instance Judgment on Dispute over Sale and Purchase Contract

　　Case Type: Dispute over Sales Contract

　　Judgment Date: November 26, 2021

　　People’s Court: Zhuzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Hunan Province

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Members of the Collegial Panel: Duan Chwenwen, Peng德华, Xiao Jing

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that this case is a dispute over a sales contract. The focal point of the dispute in this case is whether the sales contract signed by Ning Min and Hunan Jinshang Tongda Company is valid and whether it should be performed. According to relevant provisions of our national laws, contracts legally established are protected by law and have binding force on both parties. Parties shall perform their obligations as agreed and shall not unilaterally change or terminate the contract. However, they shall abide by laws and administrative regulations, respect public morality, and shall not disturb social economic order or harm public interests. Ning Min and Hunan Jinshang Tongda Company signed the ‘IPFS Eco-Construction and Win-Win Project Mining Machine Sales Agreement’ on May 10, 2019. At the time of the signing of the contract, it did not violate the provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and was the real intention of both parties. The contract relationship was legally established and protected. Ning Min has paid the price as agreed in the contract, and Hunan Jinshang Tongda Company has fulfilled its obligation to deliver goods. The third party Shanghai Tianru Network Technology Co., Ltd. has also been responsible for ensuring the normal operation of Ning Min’s two Starry Sky mining machines according to the requirements of the appellant Hunan Jinshang Tongda Company. However, according to the spirit of documents such as ‘Several Guarantee Measures for Ensuring the Completion of the ’14th Five-Year Plan’ Energy Consumption and Emission Control Goals and Tasks’ and ‘Notice on Further Preventing and Handling the Risk of Speculation and Manipulation in Online Casino and How to Find It Transactions’, the contract signed by both parties has clearly become unenforceable by law. Therefore, Ning Min’s request to Hunan Jinshang Tongda Blockchain Technology Co., Ltd. and the third party Shanghai Tianru Network Technology Co., Ltd. to restore the normal operation of the two Starry Sky mining machines of the series ‘IPFS Professional Mining Machine PL7200’ (test IP address: 43.254.11.59, 43.254.11.60), to lift the freeze on the mining machine server account, and to stop the infringement, should not be supported. In summary, the appeal of Hunan Jinshang Tongda Blockchain Technology Co., Ltd. is justified. In accordance with Article 7, Article 8, and Article 94 of the ‘Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China’, the second paragraph of Article 1, paragraph 2 of the ‘Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Time Effectiveness of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China’, and Article 170, paragraph 1, item 2 of the ‘Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China’, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: First, revoke the civil judgment No. (2021) Hunan 0211 Min Chu 2044 issued by Hunan Tianyuan District People’s Court; Second, reject all of Ning Min’s claims. The filing fee for the first instance case is reduced by half and collected 100 yuan, which is borne by Ning Min. The filing fee for the second instance case is 200 yuan, which is also borne by Ning Min. This judgment is the final judgment.

　　13. Civil Second Instance Judgment of the Dispute over Internet Infringement Liability between Wu Yefei and Beijing Huobi Global Network Technology Co., Ltd.

　　Case Number: (2021) Jing 04 Min Zhong 743

　　Case Reason: Dispute over Internet Infringement Liability

　　Judgment Date: 2021.11.25

　　The People’s Court: Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Composition of the Bench: Zhang Yan, Hu Huaisong, Zhang Qinyuan

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that this case is an international case. According to Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Procedure Law), the procedures of this case shall apply the special provisions of Chapter IV of the Civil Procedure Law on the procedures of international civil litigation. Where the provisions of this chapter do not apply, the other relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law shall apply. The first-instance court improperly handled the issue of the application of procedural law in the case, and this court has corrected it. The first-instance court correctly applied the mainland law as the applicable law for resolving the disputes between the parties to the case, and this court has confirmed it. According to Article 1 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Certain Issues Regarding the Time Effectiveness, this case falls under civil disputes caused by legal facts before the implementation of the Civil Code, therefore, this case shall apply the provisions of the law and judicial interpretations at that time. In light of the arguments and defenses of both parties, the focal point of the dispute during the second-instance proceedings is whether Beijing Huobi Company is the subject of liability for the infringing act, and whether it should bear the liability for infringement. Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Tort Liability Law stipulates that network service providers who use the network to infringe upon the civil rights and interests of others shall bear tort liability, and the liability stipulated in this paragraph shall be based on negligence. Therefore, this case should address whether Beijing Huobi Company has been negligent in relation to the property loss claimed by Wu Yefei. In this case, Wu Yefei’s property loss was caused by a misoperation during the transaction and investment through the involved software. From the perspective of whether Beijing Huobi Company had intent, it is difficult to say that Beijing Huobi Company had intent towards Wu Yefei’s action. From the perspective of whether Beijing Huobi Company had negligence, the network service provider of the involved software is Huobi Global Company, a foreign company. The existing evidence cannot prove that Beijing Huobi Company is the actual network service provider or the platform providing intermediary services. Even if it can be proved that Li Lin is the actual controller of both Beijing Huobi Company and Huobi Global Company, it does not necessarily follow that Beijing Huobi Company has the legal obligation of due diligence for the operation of the involved software, and Beijing Huobi Company does not have negligence. Therefore, Beijing Huobi Company does not have negligence towards the property loss claimed by Wu Yefei. Regarding Wu Yefei’s appeal that Beijing Huobi Company and Huobi Global Company should bear joint and several liabilities due to confusion, this court believes that Wu Yefei has not provided evidence of confusion in company property, business, or personnel. The customer service reply provided in the first-instance evidence is also a customer service message from Huobi Global Company, which is actually operating, and not from Beijing Huobi Company. The evidence provided that one can log in to the www.huobi.cn website to access the page of Huobi Global Company also shows that at the time of the acts in this case, Beijing Huobi Company was not the unit responsible for the recordation of the website. In summary, the judgment of the first-instance court to reject Wu Yefei’s claim for compensation for losses is appropriate, and this court upholds it. In summary, Wu Yefei’s appeal cannot be upheld and should be rejected; the first-instance judgment is clear in determining the facts and correctly applying the law, and should be upheld. According to Paragraph 1, Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld. The受理 fee for the second-instance case is 333 yuan, to be borne by Wu Yefei (already paid). This judgment is the final judgment.

　　14. Civil Application for Review of Civil Judgment of Liu Qing and Xu Shen Contract Dispute

　　Case Number: (2021)豫02民申352号

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　Judgment Date: 2021.11.15

　　Trial Court: Kaifeng Municipal People’s Court, Henan Province

　　Trial Level: Retrial

　　Composition of the Bench: Lu Jianjun, Ge Ruiping, Ye Haitao

　　Judgment Reason: After review, the court believes that neither Chinese laws nor administrative regulations prohibit the production, holding, and legal transfer of Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not possess the monetary attributes of legal tender and mandatory status, but it has the attributes of goods and belongs to network virtual property, which should be protected by law. Therefore, the applicant’s reason for claiming that the agreement signed by both parties is invalid cannot be established. Regarding the applicant’s claim that the second-instance judgment identified BTC as Bitcoin, which seriously violates the law, it can be seen from the agreement signed by both parties, computer screenshots, and WeChat chat records that the respondent has paid the applicant 18.7 Bitcoin. Therefore, the applicant’s reason for the retrial application cannot be established. From the evidence submitted by the respondent, including WeChat chat records, transfer receipts, and received notes, it can be confirmed that the applicant has received the 2 million yuan payment for the mining machine from the respondent, and the mining machine has been put into operation and the cooperation between both parties has ceased. The first and second-instance courts have ruled that the applicant should return 740,000 yuan to the respondent and return 18.7 Bitcoin or 1.26 million yuan in cash, which is not inappropriate. Regarding the applicant’s claim that the first-instance judgment exceeded the claims, there was indeed a typographical error in the main text of the first-instance judgment, but the first-instance court has corrected it through a supplementary correction order. Regarding the applicant’s claim that the second-instance jurisdictional objection ruling is not satisfactory, it does not fall within the scope of review for retrial, and the court will not review it. Regarding the applicant’s claim that the second-instance trial procedure was illegal, the materials in the second-instance case file show that the second-instance adopted a written trial method and did not hold a hearing. Both parties also expressed that they had no objections to the trial method and other matters. Therefore, the applicant’s reason for claiming that the second-instance trial procedure was illegal cannot be established. In summary, Liu Qing’s application for retrial does not meet the circumstances stipulated in Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. According to the first paragraph of Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and the second paragraph of Article 395 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 following decision is made:

　　裁判结果：驳回刘庆的再审申请。

　　裁判结果: Reject the retrial application of Liu Qing.

　　15. Civil Second Instance Ruling on Dispute over Contract between Li Ji, Zhou Li, and others

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　案号: (2021)Chuan33MinZhong292

　　裁判日期: 2021.11.05

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　审判法院: Kangzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture Intermediate People’s Court, Sichuan Province

　　Judges: Li Songtao, Duan Huichao, Han Yi

　　裁判结果: 1. Overturn the civil ruling (2021)Chuan33MinChu484 of Luding County People’s Court, Sichuan Province; 2. The case is instructed to be tried by Luding County People’s Court, Sichuan Province. This ruling is a final ruling. The reasons for the ruling: This court believes that according to the Notice on Further Preventing and Handling the Risk of Speculation and Manipulation of Online Casino Transactions issued by the People’s Bank of China and other departments on September 15, 2021, related business activities of Online casino and How to find it are illegal financial activities, but mining machines used for ‘mining’ are not illegal items. Li Ji’s claim to terminate the contract and return the mining machine falls within the scope of civil litigation handled by the People’s Courts. According to the evidence on file, there is not enough to prove that this case involves economic crime. Therefore, this case should be tried; the first-instance ruling rejecting Li Ji’s lawsuit is inappropriate, and this court shall correct it in accordance with law. According to Article 171 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and Article 332 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 following ruling is made:

　　16. Civil Second Instance Judgment on Dispute over Partnership Agreement between Pan Yang and Cao Guohui

　　案号: (2021)Chuan01MinZhong12667

　　案件性质: Partnership Contract Dispute [Dispute over Partnership Agreement]

　　裁判日期: 2021.09.26

　　审判法院: Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court, Sichuan Province

　　审判级别: Second Instance

　　Judges: Wang Lao, Ye Yunjing, Fu Kewen

　　Judgment Reasons: The court believes that Article 1, Paragraph 2 of theAccording to the first paragraph of Article 170, first item, and the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Time Effectiveness, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: 1. The civil judgment of Wujiang District People’s Court, Chengdu City (2021)Chuan0107MinFirst3464 is revoked; 2. Cao Guohui shall return 246,269 yuan to Pan Yang within ten days from the date of the judgment; 3. The other claims of Pan Yang are dismissed. If the obligation to pay is not fulfilled within the specified period as designated by this judgment, the debt interest during the period of delay shall be doubled in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The受理 fee for the first instance case is reduced by half and collected 2907 yuan, of which 2497 yuan shall be borne by Cao Guohui, 404 yuan by Pan Yang, and 2070 yuan for preservation fee; the受理fee for the second instance case is 5815 yuan, of which 5000 yuan shall be borne by Cao Guohui, and 815 yuan by Pan Yang. This judgment is final. After the judgment of this case takes effect, the parties who have the obligation to perform shall perform their obligations in accordance with the law. If they fail to perform their obligations within the due time, after the right holder applies for enforcement, the people’s court shall take measures such as restricting high-consumption, listing on the credit blacklist, fines, and detention in accordance with the law. If a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be investigated and prosecuted.

　　17. Criminal First Instance Judgment on the Criminal Case of Yu Mou’s Theft

　　Case Number: (2021)Liao0303CrimiFirst398

　　Case Type: Theft

　　Judgment Date: 2022.03.07

　　Trial Court: Tiedong District People’s Court, Anshan City, Liaoning Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Composition of the Bench: Gao Peng’an, Yuan Qiulian, Tan Weifeng

　　Judgment Reason: This court believes that the defendant Yu Mou, with the intention of illegal possession, arbitrarily tapped into the power supply for theft, the amount was substantial, and his act constitutes the crime of theft, which should be punished in accordance with the law. The charges brought by the public prosecutor are substantiated. The defendant Yu Mou has confessed to the crime and paid the full compensation, as well as the electricity breach of contract fine, and has obtained forgiveness, so he may be leniently punished. The suspension of sentence will not have a significant adverse impact on the community where he resides, and the suspension of sentence can be applied. Regarding the defense opinions raised by the defense attorney Yang Quan, they are adopted. Regarding the defense opinions raised by Liu Jianping, due to the evidence provided by the public prosecutor, including witness testimony, the victim’s statement, the defendant Yu Mou’s confession, the electricity statistics and situation description of the State Grid Anshan Power Supply Company, it can be determined that the defendant Yu Mou committed the crime of theft, so they are not adopted. The sentencing suggestion of the public prosecutor is appropriate. According to Article 264, 72, 73, 52, 53 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, and Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: The defendant Yu Mou was convicted of theft and sentenced to three years of imprisonment, suspended for four years, and fined 20,000 yuan. (The probation period shall commence from the date of the judgment, and the fine has been paid.)

　　18. Civil First Instance Judgment Book on Dispute over Sale and Purchase Contract between Zhang Yiyao and Xiong Zhao gang

　　Case Number: (2022)Chuan1621MinChu223

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　Judgment Date: 2022.02.24

　　Court of Trial: People’s Court of Yechi County, Sichuan Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Trial Judge: Li Hongbin

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that the transaction involved in this case is actually the calculation production of online casino and How to find it through the purchase of special “mining machines”. Such “mining” activities consume a lot of energy and carbon emissions, which are not conducive to the optimization of China’s industrial structure and energy conservation and emission reduction, and are not conducive to China’s achievement of peak carbon dioxide emissions and carbon neutrality goals. Moreover, the risks of false assets, business failure, investment speculation, and other risks derived from the production and trading links of online casino and How to find it are prominent, which are detrimental to the public interest. Knowing that the online casino and How to find it mining and trading activities exist risks, and that relevant departments have explicitly prohibited related transactions, the plaintiff and the defendant still signed the “SWARM Storage Equipment Cooperation Agreement”. This agreement should be invalid due to its damage to the public interest, and the related property rights and interests arising therefrom should not be protected by law. The consequences caused by the above acts should be borne by the parties themselves. In summary, according to Article 8, Article 9, and Article 143 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the following judgment is made:

　　Judgment Result: The court dismisses all the claims of the plaintiff, Zhang Yiyao. The case filing fee of 5,185 yuan and the preservation fee of 3,820 yuan, totaling 9,005 yuan, shall be borne by the plaintiff Zhang Yiyao.

　　19. Civil First Instance Judgment Book on Dispute over Sale and Purchase Contract between Hangzhou Kuang’an Network Technology Co., Ltd. and others

　　Case Number: (2022)Huo0110MinChu1439

　　Case Type: Dispute over Sales Contract

　　Judgment Date: 2022.01.20

　　Court of Trial: People’s Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Trial Judge: Zhou Ping

　　Judgment Reason: After review, the court believes that the claims made by the plaintiff must fall within the scope of civil litigation accepted by the People’s Courts. After review, the sale and purchase contract for mining machines claimed by the plaintiff is an online casino and How to find it mining activity that is explicitly prohibited by the state and is not protected by law. It falls under the matters of rectification and administration by relevant departments and is therefore not within the scope of civil cases accepted by the People’s Courts. According to Article 122, Paragraph (4), and Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the following decision is made:

　　Judgment Result: The lawsuit filed against Hangzhou Kuang’an Network Technology Co., Ltd. is not accepted by the court.

　　20. Civil First Instance Judgment Book on Dispute over Sale and Purchase Contract between Deng Peng and Cheng Tianjie

　　Case Number: (2021)Chuan0682MinChu3356

　　Case Type: Dispute over Sales Contract

　　Judgment Date: 2022.01.19

　　Court of Trial: People’s Court of Shifang City, Sichuan Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Trial Judge: Guo Wei

　　Judgment reasons: The court believes that although there is no written sales contract between the parties involved in the case, the characteristics of their behavior conform to the legal features of a sales contract. The relationship of the sales contract is established and the performance time occurs after the implementation of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code). According to the relevant provisions of theThe defendant chatted and said, ‘To tell you the truth, my friend gave me around 35,000 yuan…’, In conjunction with the reference price information of the ‘mining machine’ submitted by the plaintiff, it can be determined that the price of the ‘mining machine’ traded (bought and sold) by both parties is 38,000 yuan per unit for 3 units and 37,000 yuan for 1 unit. Both parties agreed on the terms and were willing to engage in the transaction. When the corresponding delivery express tracking number was issued and the goods were dispatched, the plaintiff paid the price, which also conforms to the trading practice. At the same time, the plaintiff and Dong Fang are married, and although there are certain defects in the payment authorization, according to the family agency system, it can be recognized that Dong Fang paid 114,000 yuan to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, and the court respects this fact. During the performance of the contract, with the logistics information process of the express delivery waybill, the plaintiff provided evidence such as the receipt and acceptance video materials of the subsequent buyer (Li Hui) and Ms. Song, which shows that the ‘mining machine’ sent and delivered by the defendant, either as S9 or due to problems, was not the agreed-upon goods by the two parties, and was rejected by the subsequent buyer (buyer) or directly returned to the origin, and was signed for. In view of the defendant’s statement in court that the defendant paid 18,000 yuan to its upstream (seller) and was unclear about the dispatched goods, and the defendant did not submit evidence, the court believes that the ‘mining machine’ involved in the case, although the quality standards were not explicitly agreed upon in writing by both parties, the defendant sold the ‘a10 mining machine’, and the plaintiff was willing to buy the ‘a10 mining machine’. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff can prove that the defendant did not deliver the core dynamic A10pro.5G ‘mining machine’ as agreed in the WeChat chat records, and the defendant has committed a breach of contract. The opinion held by the plaintiff that the contract should be terminated because the defendant did not deliver the goods according to the agreed model, making it impossible to achieve the fundamental purpose of the contract, and the contract relationship involved in the case should be terminated, has been adopted by the court. According to Article 565, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, the contract relationship involved in the case is terminated from the time the copy of the complaint is served on the defendant. Regarding the issue of price return, the plaintiff in this case claims the return of 151,000 yuan of the goods, which is in line with the provisions of the Civil Code on the effectiveness of contract termination and also conforms to the objective facts of the performance of the contract between the two parties, that is, the buyer has paid the goods but has not received them. As the seller, the defendant should bear civil liability and return the payment to the buyer, the plaintiff. The court supports this claim by the plaintiff. As for the claim for interest on the plaintiff’s funds, although the parties did not sign a written agreement to make an agreement, since the defendant has not returned the price since the plaintiff claimed the termination of the contract relationship, the defendant should bear the corresponding interest loss. At the same time, the court notes that the defendant is a ‘post-2000s’ person, just stepping into society, and the road of life ahead is long. Considering the specific circumstances of this case in terms of payment time, etc., in accordance with Paragraph 4 of Article 18 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Dispute Cases of Sale and Purchase Contracts, the calculation of the interest is believed by the court to start from the time the copy of the complaint was served on the defendant (delivered by WeChat on December 15, 2021) and calculate according to the one-year loan prime rate (LPR) published by the National Interbank Funding Center.Standard calculation is appropriate. In summary, in accordance with the aforementioned legal provisions and Article 145 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: 1. The sales contract between the plaintiff Deng Peng and the defendant Cheng Tianjie for the XinDong A10pro mining machine was terminated on December 15, 2021; 2. The defendant Cheng Tianjie shall return the sum of 151,000 yuan to the plaintiff Deng Peng within thirty days from the effective date of this judgment, and pay the interest loss on the capital [Calculation method: based on 151,000 yuan as the base, calculate the interest loss at the one-year loan prime rate (LPR) announced by the interbank lending center of the People’s Bank of China from December 15, 2021, to the date of payment of the amount determined by this judgment; if the payment is not made on the date determined by this judgment, the interest calculation shall continue until the payment is settled]; 3. The other litigation claims of the plaintiff Deng Peng are hereby dismissed. If the obligation to pay money is not performed within the period specified by this judgment, the interest on the delayed performance period shall be doubled in accordance with Article 260 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The case handling fee is reduced to 1,660 yuan, and the preservation fee is 1,275 yuan, totaling 2,935 yuan, which shall be borne by the defendant Cheng Tianjie (this amount has been pre-paid by the plaintiff to the court, and the defendant shall also pay it directly to the plaintiff within thirty days from the effective date of this judgment).

　　21. Judgment on the Civil First Instance of the Contract Dispute between Yunchu Future (Xiamen) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Su Tuanling

　　Case Number: (2021)Fujian 0203 Minchu 13303

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　Judgment Date: 2022.01.04

　　Judicial Court: Xiamen Siming District People’s Court, Fujian Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Judges: Wang Jian

　　Judgment Reason: This court believes that Su Tuanling and Yunchu Future Company signed the ‘Data Storage Equipment Purchase and托管 Operation and Maintenance Contract’, which stipulates that Su Tuanling shall purchase data storage equipment from Yunchu Future Company and entrust Yunchu Future Company to manage and operate it. In combination with the facts confirmed by Su Tuanling at the trial, the transaction between the two parties is actually the ‘mining’ activity of producing Online casino and How to find it through special ‘mining machines’. Such ‘mining’ activities have high energy consumption and carbon emissions, which are not conducive to the optimization of China’s industrial structure and energy conservation and emission reduction. 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 the public interest. Therefore, the aforementioned contract should be deemed invalid. Although Su Tuanling filed this lawsuit on the grounds that the contract is valid, the review of the validity of the contract is an issue that the court shall examine on its own initiative, and the dissolution and invalidity of the contract both involve the legal effect of returning property. In order to avoid the litigation burden on the parties, this court directly determines the validity of the contract involved in this case and makes the relevant legal consequences accordingly. After the contract is deemed invalid, the property obtained from the contract shall be returned, so Yunchu Future Company shall refund the contract amount of 38,000 yuan to Su Tuanling. In summary, Su Tuanling’s claims are based on both facts and legal grounds, and this court supports them. According to Articles 52 and 58 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, and Article 147 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Results: 1. Confirm the invalidity of the ‘Data Storage Equipment Purchase and托管 Operation and Maintenance Contract’ signed between Su Tuanling and Yunchu Future (Xiamen) Network Technology Co., Ltd.; 2. Yunchu Future (Xiamen) Network Technology Co., Ltd. shall refund the contract amount of 38,000 yuan to Su Tuanling within ten days from the date when this judgment takes effect. If the payment obligation is not fulfilled within the period specified by this judgment, according to Article 260 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the interest on the delayed performance shall be doubled. The case filing fee is 1,290 yuan, reduced to 645 yuan, to be borne by Yunchu Future (Xiamen) Network Technology Co., Ltd. The payment shall be made to the court within seven days from the date when this judgment takes effect.

　　22. Judgment on the Civil First Instance of the Dispute over the Sale and Purchase Contract between Fang Xiaochun, Shenzhen Yilian Network Technology Co., Ltd., and others

　　Case Number: (2021)Yue 0303 Minchu 25331

　　Case Type: Dispute over Sales Contract

　　Judgment Date: 2021.12.28

　　Hearing Court: Shenzhen Luohu District People’s Court, Guangdong Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that this case is a dispute over a sale and purchase contract. The focal points of this case are two: whether the plaintiff is the counterparty to the contract and whether it is a qualified subject; and the validity of the contract involved, whether it is an invalid contract. Regarding the first focal point. Although neither the plaintiff nor the third party Zhou Jian, who signed the contract on behalf of the plaintiff, signed their names on the contract’s signature line, both the third party Zhou Jian and the third party He Chuan, who signed the contract on behalf of the defendant Yilian Company, confirmed that the plaintiff is the actual counterparty to the contract, and that the defendant Yilian Company and Ma Yan were aware of this. Furthermore, the payment of goods made by the plaintiff to the defendant Yilian Company was collected by the third party He Chuan and then transferred to the payment address designated by the legal representative and shareholder of the defendant Yilian Company, Ma Yan. Moreover, Ma Yan mailed the contract sealed with the company’s official seal to the plaintiff, and thereafter, Ma Yan also confirmed the authenticity of the contract with the plaintiff via WeChat and expressed his intention to fulfill the obligation of delivering the mining machines as stipulated in the contract. In summary, the statements of the plaintiff and the third parties He Chuan and Zhou Jian, the WeChat conversations between the plaintiff and Ma Yan, and the payment process of the plaintiff, etc., all serve as evidence to confirm that the plaintiff is the counterparty to the contract involved and is a qualified subject in this case. The defense opinions of the defendant Yilian Company and Ma Yan regarding the plaintiff not being the counterparty to the contract or a qualified subject, and Ma Yan not knowing the plaintiff, are inconsistent with the facts, and the court does not accept them. Regarding the second focal point. The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that ‘Civil subjects shall, in engaging in civil activities, be conducive to resource conservation and ecological environmental protection.’ The transaction involved in this case is actually aThird party He Chuan also signed the contract involved on behalf of the defendant Yilian Company. Consequently, this court determines that the defendant Yilian Company has received the relevant funds. Moreover, according to the requirements of the defendant Ma Yan, He Chuan transferred the funds to the Online casino and How to find it payment account designated by him. The defendant Ma Yan also confirmed in the WeChat chat records with the plaintiff that he would fulfill the contract and deliver the mining machines. In summary, the defendant Yilian Company’s argument that it has not received the purchase funds involved is inconsistent with the facts, and this court does not accept it. Now, the involved contract is invalid, and the defendant Yilian Company has also not delivered the mining machines or fulfilled its contractual obligations before, so the defendant Yilian Company should return the full purchase amount of 309,747.99 yuan to the plaintiff. The interest on the funds occupied by the plaintiff, this court decides to calculate from the day the copy of the complaint was served on the defendant Yilian Company, i.e., November 24, 2021, with a base amount of 309,747.99 yuan, at the interest rate of 3.85% for a one-year loan market quotation rate until the funds are fully repaid. The excess part claimed by the plaintiff is not supported by this court. Regarding the issue of whether the defendant Ma Yan and Xue Xinzhuan should bear joint and several liabilities, Article 63 of the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China establishes the rule of reversed burden of proof for the fact that the property of a sole shareholder company is independent, namely, the shareholder of a sole shareholder company shall prove that the company’s property is independent of the shareholder’s own property. In the absence of completing the burden of proof, the company shall bear joint and several liabilities for the company’s debts. In this case, at the time the involved debt was formed, the defendant Ma Yan was the sole shareholder of the defendant Yilian Company, and the defendant Xue Xinzhuan had been the sole shareholder of the defendant Yilian Company since July 20, 2021. Neither of the two defendants has proven the independence of their personal property from the defendant Yilian Company’s property, and they should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim that the two defendants bear joint and several liabilities for the aforementioned debt of the defendant Yilian Company is supported by law, and this court supports it. In summary, in accordance with Article 8, Article 9, Paragraph 2 of Article 153, Article 157 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, Article 63 of the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China, Paragraph 1 of Article 64 and Article 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: 1. The defendant Shenzhen Yilian Network Technology Co., Ltd. shall return RMB 309,747.99 to the plaintiff within ten days from the date of the judgment coming into effect; 2. The defendant Shenzhen Yilian Network Technology Co., Ltd. shall pay the interest on the occupation of funds (interest calculated at an annual interest rate of 3.85% based on RMB 309,747.99, from November 24, 2021, to the date of the payment of the principal) to the plaintiff within ten days from the date of the judgment coming into effect; 3. Ma Yan and Xue Xinzhuan shall bear joint and several liabilities for the above-mentioned debts owed by the defendant Shenzhen Yilian Network Technology Co., Ltd.; 4. The other claims of the plaintiff Fang Xiaochun are hereby dismissed. If the payment of money is not performed within the period specified in the judgment, the debt interest during the period of delay shall be doubled in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The filing fee is 2,989 yuan, of which the plaintiff Fang Xiaochun shall bear 20 yuan, and the defendant Shenzhen Yilian Network Technology Co., Ltd., Ma Yan, and Xue Xinzhuan shall bear 2,969 yuan. The 2,969 yuan overpaid by the plaintiff Fang Xiaochun shall be refunded by this court. The defendant Shenzhen Yilian Network Technology Co., Ltd., Ma Yan, and Xue Xinzhuan shall pay the aforementioned fee of 2,969 yuan to this court within ten days from the date of the judgment coming into effect. In case of failure to pay on time, this court shall enforce the payment according to law.

　　23. Civil First Instance Judgment Book of Civil Loan Dispute between Mao Yangfan and Yin Senwei

　　Case Number: (2021) Hunan 0722 Minchu 2846

　　Cause of Action: Civil Loan Dispute

　　Judgment Date: 2021.12.23

　　Trial Court: Hanlou County People’s Court, Hunan Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Composition of the Bench: Ding Tao, Yang Dan, Li Mingzheng

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that invalid civil legal acts have no legal binding force from the very beginning. The transaction involved between the parties in this case is actually the mining activity of Online casino and How to find it through the purchase of special mining machines. Such mining activities consume a large amount of energy and carbon emissions, which is不利于 the optimization of the national industrial structure, energy conservation and emission reduction, and also不利于 achieving the goals of peak carbon dioxide emissions and carbon neutrality, and is不利于 saving resources and protecting the ecological environment. Moreover, the risks of false assets, business failure, and investment speculation derived from the production and trading links of Online casino and How to find it are prominent, and harm the public interest. Mao Yangfan, knowing that there are risks in mining and the trading of Online casino and How to find it, and that relevant departments have explicitly prohibited related transactions, still invested capital to purchase mining machines and carry out mining activities. The agreement formed between Mao Yangfan and Yin Senwei on the purchase of mining machines and mining should be invalid due to its damage to the public interest, its unhelpfulness in saving resources and protecting the ecological environment. Therefore, the consequences and losses caused by it should be borne by the relevant parties. The civil legal acts established by both parties for the sale and purchase of mining machines and mining are invalid, and the civil loan contract formed based on the invalid act of selling mining machines is also invalid. The property obtained by both parties due to the invalid civil legal acts should be returned. Since the mining machine purchased by Mao Yangfan was already in Yin Senwei’s possession, Mao Yangfan does not need to return it; the Online casino and How to find it paid by Mao Yangfan does not have the same legal status as the legal currency of our country and cannot be used as currency for circulation in the market, and cannot be exchanged at par with the legal currency. This part of the funds is not recognized, and Yin Senwei should deduct the amount paid by Mao Yangfan for purchasing mining machines from the amount he has already paid and return it. Yin Senwei was summoned by the court, but he did not attend the trial without a legitimate reason, and he can be sentenced in absentia in accordance with the law. In summary, Yin Senwei should still return 339,000 yuan to Mao Yangfan [459,000 yuan – (165,000 yuan – 44,000 yuan – 1,000 yuan)], and the other claims of Mao Yangfan are not supported. Based on this, in accordance with Articles 8, 9, 153, 155, and 157 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, and Articles 64 and 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment result: 1. Yinsenwei shall return RMB 339,000 to Ma Yangfan within ten days from the date of the生效 of this judgment; 2. The other claims of Ma Yangfan are hereby dismissed. If the payment obligation is not fulfilled within the period specified by this judgment, the interest on the delayed performance of the debt shall be doubled in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The case filing fee is 12,784 yuan, and the preservation fee is 5,000 yuan, totaling 17,784 yuan, of which Ma Yangfan shall bear 11,074 yuan and Yinsenwei shall bear 6,710 yuan.

　　24. Civil First Instance Judgment Book of Contract Dispute between Chen Yong, Zhou Guangyi, and others

　　Case Number: (2021) An 0303 Minchu 5710

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　Judgment Date: 2021.12.21

　　Court: Bengbu District People’s Court, Anhui Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that this case is a dispute over a sales contract, involving the parties to the contract as the plaintiff Chen Yong, Zhou Guangyi, and the defendant Li Wei, Chen Chao. The focal point of the dispute in this case is: 1. The issue of the validity of the involved sales contract; 2. Whether the plaintiff’s claim for the return of the transfer amount of 48,000 yuan and the difference of 72,460 yuan should be supported. (1) Regarding the issue of the validity of the involved contract, the transaction involved in this case is actually the sale and entrusted management of

　　Judgment result: 1. The defendant Chen Chao and Li Wei shall repay the plaintiff Chen Yong and Zhou Guangyi the resale price of 48,000 yuan for the ‘mining machine’ and the difference of 72,460 yuan within ten days from the date when this judgment takes effect; 2. The other lawsuit requests of the plaintiff Chen Yong and Zhou Guangyi are rejected. If the defendant fails to fulfill the payment obligation as specified in this judgment within the designated period, it shall pay double the interest on the debt during the period of delay in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The case受理费 is 6,254 yuan, reduced to 3,127 yuan, borne by the plaintiff Chen Yong and Zhou Guangyi (3,186 yuan has been paid by the plaintiff), and 1,141 yuan by the defendant Chen Chao and Li Wei, which shall be paid to the court within seven days after the judgment takes effect.

　　25. Civil first-instance judgment of the civil lawsuit of Yang Min and He Xingjiu on the dispute of unjust enrichment

　　Case number: (2021) Chu 1826 Minchu 1093

　　Case type: Dispute of unjust enrichment

　　Judgment Date: December 20, 2021

　　Judicial court: Lushan County People’s Court, Sichuan Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Judicial personnel: Yang Ye

　　Judgment reasons: This court believes that the evidence of the parties shows that the funds transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant were received by the defendant and used for mining the Qilin and Noa mining machines invested by the plaintiff, and operated on the plaintiff’s mobile phone. The plaintiff was aware of the destination and purpose of the transfer and it was not the personal income of the defendant. After the policy was suspended, the plaintiff suffered losses, but the plaintiff’s losses did not become the illegal gains of the defendant, and the plaintiff also has no evidence to prove the agreement of guarantee promised by the defendant. Therefore, there is no unjust enrichment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, nor is there a guarantee contract relationship. The court does not support the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to return the investment funds. According to Article 985, Article 681 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, and Article 90 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:

　　Judgment result: The lawsuit request of the plaintiff Yang Min is rejected. The case受理费 is 172 yuan, borne by the plaintiff Yang Min.

　　26. Civil First Instance Judgment on Dispute over Sale and Purchase Contract between Tang Zijing and Wang Wu

　　Case Number: (2021) Sichuan 0722 Minchu 5619

　　Case Type: Dispute over Sales Contract

　　Judgment Date: December 20, 2021

　　Trial Court: Sichuan Province Santai County People’s Court

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Judge: Tang Jing

　　Judgment Reason: The Court believes that the focal point of this case is whether there is a sale and purchase contract between the plaintiff Tang Zijing and the defendant Wang Wu. Firstly, although the plaintiff transferred 170,000 yuan to the defendant and mentioned the purchase of mining machines, there was no written sale and purchase contract or other written evidence directly reflecting the existence of a sale and purchase intention between the two parties; secondly, the plaintiff claimed that he purchased mining machines from Wang Wu based on his trust in Wang Wu’s personal character, and directly transferred 170,000 yuan in cash to Wang Wu’s personal bank account, which is inconsistent with the normal trading habits and does not conform to common sense; thirdly, the plaintiff claimed to have known Wang Wu through a friend and purchased mining machines from him, but failed to provide evidence for this contact point, and his evidence could not form a chain; fourthly, the defendant provided evidence to prove that a person outside the case, Gao Qiluan, purchased mining machines from the China and Foreign Mining Industry Co., Ltd. and directly transferred money to Wang Wu, including a transfer of 170,000 yuan, which was a direct transfer from Tang Zijing to Wang Wu, and this amount was actually Gao Qiluan’s purchase money. As for Tang Zijing’s statement that he handed over the transfer receipt to Gao Qiluan and asked Wang Wu to withdraw the investment at the same time, there are also unreasonable aspects, if Tang Zijing was based on his trust in Wang Wu’s personal character, why would he ask for the withdrawal of investment funds through others. Tang Zijing stated that he only knew Gao Qiluan, which was inconsistent with the behavior of transferring a debt of 170,000 yuan to her and asking for its repayment directly. Therefore, this defense argument is not accepted. In summary, although the plaintiff transferred 170,000 yuan to Wang Wu, there is no evidence to prove the existence of a sale and purchase relationship between the two parties. According to Article 90 and Paragraph 1 of Article 108 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Laws, the party shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which the party bases its claims; if the court, after reviewing the evidence provided by the party with the burden of proof and combining it with relevant facts, is convinced that the existence of the facts to be proved is highly probable, it shall recognize the existence of such facts. Based on the evidence provided by the plaintiff and relevant facts, the Court believes that the facts that there is a sale and purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant are not highly probable, and the plaintiff should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence. Therefore, the Court does not support the relevant claims of the plaintiff. In summary, in accordance with Paragraph 1 of Article 90, Paragraph 1 of Article 108, and Article 142, Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: The lawsuit claims of the plaintiff Tang Zijing are dismissed. The case filing fee is 1900 yuan, to be borne by the plaintiff Tang Zijing.

　　27. Civil First Instance Judgment on Dispute over Sale and Purchase Contract between Qu Guilin and Jiang Wenpei

　　Case Number: (2021) Yue 0391 Minchu 3826

　　Case Type: Dispute over Sales Contract

　　Judgment Date: December 17, 2021

　　Trial Court: Shenzhen Qianhai Cooperation Zone People’s Court

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that the plaintiff, Qu Guilin, is a resident of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and this case is a dispute over a cross-border sale contract. According to Article 17 of the Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Legal Application of Civil Relations in Foreign Countries, this case should be handled in accordance with the provisions for foreign-related cases. Both parties agreed to apply the mainland laws of the People’s Republic of China during the trial. Therefore, according to Article 41 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Legal Application of Civil Relations in Foreign Countries, this case should apply the mainland laws of our country as the governing law. All the legal facts such as the payment of the goods by the plaintiff occurred before the implementation of the Civil Code, according to the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Temporal Effect of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, this case should apply the laws and judicial interpretations in effect at that time. Although the plaintiff and the defendant did not sign a written sales contract, the defendant issued a notice for the subscription of mining machines, and the plaintiff paid 220,000 yuan to the defendant according to the notice to purchase the mining machine involved in the case. Therefore, both parties have established a sales contract relationship. Both parties also confirmed this. The contract does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations and the principles of public order and good customs, and is legal and effective. The plaintiff has paid the purchase amount for the mining machine to the defendant and claims that the defendant has not delivered the mining machine involved in the case to him. Therefore, the defendant has the burden of proof to deliver the mining machine involved in the case to the plaintiff. The defendant provided aThe plaintiff paid the purchase amount for the mining machine to the defendant on August 6, 2019. The subscription notice issued by the defendant states that ‘the debugging and use will be completed and put into operation from August 15 to August 17, and the warranty period is half a year’. However, the defendant has not yet provided evidence to prove that it has fulfilled its obligation to deliver the mining machine to the plaintiff, which constitutes a breach of contract. Therefore, the court supports the plaintiff’s claim to terminate the sales contract. The announcement of this case was sent on September 20, 2021, and the plaintiff claims that the contract relationship between the parties was terminated on September 29, 2021, which the court confirms in accordance with the law. According to Article 97 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, after the contract is terminated, the performance that has not yet been performed shall be terminated; the performance that has been performed may be restored to its original state, or other remedial measures may be taken, and the parties shall have the right to claim compensation for losses. Therefore, the court supports the plaintiff’s claim for the defendant to return the purchase amount for the mining machine in accordance with the law. In summary, in accordance with Article 60 (1), Article 94 (3), and Article 97 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 64 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 41 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Application of Laws in International Civil Relations, and Article 17 of the Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Application of Laws in International Civil Relations, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: 1. The sale and purchase contract relationship between the plaintiff Qu Guilin and the defendant Jiang Wenpei was terminated on September 29, 2021; 2. The defendant Jiang Wenpei shall return the purchase price of 220,000 yuan for the ‘mining machine’ to the plaintiff Qu Guilin within three days from the date when the judgment takes effect. If the defendant Jiang Wenpei fails to perform the payment obligation as specified in the judgment within the designated period, he shall pay double the interest on the debt during the period of delay in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The case handling fee is 4,600 yuan, and the announcement fee is 260 yuan (which have been pre-paid by the plaintiff), to be borne by the defendant. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff directly within three days from the date when the judgment takes effect, and the court will not refund it.

　　28. Guo Chengcan, Shenzhen Shengyili Technology Co., Ltd. and others Sale and Purchase Contract Dispute Civil First Instance Civil Ruling

　　Case Number: (2021) Guangdong 0304 Minchu 44073

　　Case Type: Dispute over Sales Contract

　　Judgment Date: 2021.12.10

　　Judging Court: Shenzhen Futian District People’s Court, Guangdong Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Judging Personnel: Du Yang

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes, according to relevant laws and regulations, where the People’s Court, after hearing the case, deems that the case does not belong to an economic dispute case but has economic criminal suspicions, it shall issue a ruling to dismiss the lawsuit and transfer the relevant materials to the public security organs or procuratorial organs. In this case, the transaction behavior of purchasing the involved ‘mining machine’ claimed by the plaintiff involves ‘mining’ transactions related to Online casino and How to find it. It is neither traditional currency nor legal currency, disrupting the economic and financial order. The amount involved in this case is relatively large, and the plaintiff has reported the relevant facts of this case to the police. The transaction behavior may involve economic crime. There may be a situation of suspected economic crime in the relevant case facts of this case. According to relevant laws and regulations and the principle of ‘criminal proceedings before civil proceedings’, since the case is deemed to have economic criminal suspicions after hearing, it does not fall within the scope of civil litigation accepted by the People’s Court, and it shall issue a ruling to dismiss the lawsuit. Therefore, the plaintiff’s lawsuit should be dismissed in accordance with the law. In summary, in accordance with Article 119 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and Article 11 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Handling of Economic Criminal Suspicions in Economic Dispute Cases, the following ruling is made:

　　Judgment Result: The lawsuit filed by the plaintiff Guo Chengcan was dismissed.

　　29. Zhou Ping, JiMSAR County Yiyi Network Technology Co., Ltd. Contract Dispute Civil First Instance Civil Judgment

　　Case Number: (2021) Xin 2327 Minchu 3247

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　Judgment Date: 2021.12.07

　　审判法院：Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region JiMSAR County People’s Court

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Judges: Tao Xinfang

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that the issue of whether there is a contract relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Firstly, the plaintiff Zhou Ping had brought the third party Liu Xin to Changji People’s Court, but the court believed that Liu Xin’s behavior was on behalf of Yiyi Network Company and rejected Zhou Ping’s lawsuit for lack of legal personality of the defendant. This civil ruling has taken effect, and as the defendant Yiyi Network Company claims, the plaintiff Zhou Ping will be unable to assert and realize his rights. Secondly, in this case, Zhou Ping transferred 43,672 yuan to the former legal representative of the defendant Yiyi Network Company, the third party Ye Lang, which also proves that there is a contract relationship between the plaintiff Zhou Ping and the defendant Yiyi Network Company. Finally, the receipt jointly signed by Zhou Ping and Liu Xin states that ‘I entrust myself at Liu Xin’s mine’, and the signature of the third party Liu Xin at the legal representative’s position in the ‘Blockchain Shared Mining Machine – Membership Agreement’ signed by both parties can be deemed as having reasonable grounds for the plaintiff Zhou Ping to believe that the third party Liu Xin can represent the defendant Yiyi Network Company and handle the handover procedures of the mining machine. In view of the above analysis, the court believes that although there is no written trust agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, a factual trust relationship has been formed between them through their actions. The defendant’s defense that there is no contract relationship between the parties is not accepted by the court. According to Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, ‘When a party makes a claim or refutes the opponent’s claim, he shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which his claim is based, except as otherwise provided by law. If the party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove his claim before making a judgment, the party shall bear the adverse consequences of the burden of proof.’ The plaintiff Zhou Ping has completed his burden of proof, and the defendant has not submitted evidence to overturn the plaintiff’s evidence, so the defendant shall bear the adverse legal consequences. Therefore, the court does not accept the defendant’s defense. Regarding whether the electricity charges and losses claimed by the plaintiff are justified. The detailed statement of expenses sent by the third party Liu Xin to the plaintiff Zhou Ping through WeChat reflects that the actual electricity consumption of the plaintiff Zhou Ping is 433,516.7061 yuan, while the plaintiff Zhou Ping has transferred a total of 564,182 yuan in electricity charges to the third party Liu Xin and Ye Lang, which means that the plaintiff Zhou Ping has overpaid electricity charges by 130,665.2929 yuan (564,182 yuan – 433,516.7061 yuan). Therefore, the defendant shall refund the overpaid electricity charges to the plaintiff Zhou Ping. The interest loss of 6,707 yuan claimed by the plaintiff Zhou Ping is calculated at an annual interest rate of 3.85% from the day after the receipt signed by Zhou Ping and the third party Liu Xin to March 26, 2021, which is in accordance with the provisions of the law and is supported by the court. In summary, in accordance with Article 107 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Second Paragraph of Article 1 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Time Effectiveness of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the First Paragraph of Article 64 and the First Paragraph of Article 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, and Article 90 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:

　　Judgment Result: Within ten days from the effective date of this judgment, the defendant, Jimsar Yiyi Network Technology Co., Ltd., shall return to the plaintiff Zhou Ping an electricity fee of 130,665 yuan and interest loss of 6,707 yuan. If the obligation to pay money is not performed within the period specified by this judgment, the interest on the delayed performance period shall be doubled in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The case filing fee is 3,047.44 yuan, reduced to 1,523.72 yuan, and shall be borne by the defendant, Jimsar Yiyi Network Technology Co., Ltd.

　　30. First-instance civil judgment in the contract dispute between Hu Zhouzhou and Dai Zhen

　　Case Number: (2021) Jing0105Minchu 41408

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　Judgment Date: November 29, 2021

　　Trial Court: Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Composition of the Bench: Song Xuejiang, Wen Xiaofen, Sun Guorong

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that the facts of this case occurred before the implementation of the Civil Code. According to the ‘Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Time Effectiveness of Laws and Regulations’, civil disputes arising from legal facts before the implementation of the Civil Code should be governed by the laws and judicial interpretations in effect at that time. Therefore, this case should apply the relevant provisions of the ‘General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China’ and the ‘Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China’. Article 7 of the ‘Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China’ stipulates that parties to a contract shall comply with laws and administrative regulations, respect public morality, and shall not disturb social economic order or harm public interests. Article 79 provides that a creditor may transfer all or part of the rights of a contract to a third party, except under the following circumstances: (1) it is not transferable due to the nature of the contract; (2) it is not transferable according to the agreement of the parties; (3) it is not transferable according to laws and regulations. Based on the aforementioned legal provisions, the prerequisite for the transfer of a claim is that the creditor has a valid claim against the debtor, and the claim is legally valid, i.e., the content and form of the claim transferred by the original creditor must be a legally protected and valid debt. In this case, Hu Zhouzhou claims that the original claim he transferred is based on the claim that Li Moumou and Hu Moumou have against Dai Zhen. According to the aforementioned ‘Notice’, ‘Announcement’, ‘Risk Reminder’ and other documents related to ‘Online casino and How to find it’, the ETH involved in this case is a ‘Online casino and How to find it’, not a legal currency issued by a competent state authority, and does not have the same legal status as legal currency, nor does it have legal tender status, and should not and cannot be used as currency for circulation in the market. Relevant departments of the state have issued ‘Risk Announcement’, ‘Notice’ and other documents many times, warning that ‘Online casino and How to find it’ transactions involve investment speculation risks, and ‘Online casino and How to find it’ transaction contracts are not protected by law. The consequences and losses caused by investment transactions shall be borne by the relevant parties themselves. All of the aforementioned documents are publicly released and any member of the public can access and know their contents. Therefore, the court believes that the ‘claim’ transferred by Hu Zhouzhou as the claimant is not a legally protected and valid claimonline casino downloadJoin us. In addition, considering that Hu Zhouzhou has not provided evidence to prove the authenticity of the claim transfer and the certainty of the underlying claim, the court believes that Hu Zhouzhou’s claim for the return of ETH currency and compensation for losses lacks legal basis and is not supported by the court. In summary, in accordance with Article 7 and Article 79 of the ‘Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China’, and Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the ‘Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Time Effectiveness of Laws and Regulations’, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: The plaintiff Hu Zhouzhou’s entire lawsuit request is rejected. The case filing fee is 106,074 yuan, and the preservation fee is 5,000 yuan, which shall be borne by the plaintiff Hu Zhouzhou (already paid).

　　31. Criminal First Instance Judgment Document on the Crime of Organizing and Leading Pyramid Selling Activities by Huang Zhousen

　　Case Number: (2020)Qian 0103 Crim 914

　　Case Reason: Crime of Organizing and Leading Pyramid Selling Activities

　　Judgment Date: 2021.11.25

　　Trial Court: Yuncheng District People’s Court, Guiyang City, Guizhou Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Composition of the Bench: Yu Jiheng, Jian Mingzhi, Tang Yanming

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that the defendant Huang Zhousen organized and led pyramid selling activities under the guise of lottery and How to find it financial services, requiring participants to obtain membership qualifications by investing a specific amount, forming levels in a certain order, and directly or indirectly using the number of recruits as the basis for remuneration or profit return, luring participants to continue to recruit others, defrauding property, and disrupting social order. The circumstances are serious, and his actions constitute the crime of organizing and leading pyramid selling activities and shall be punished in accordance with law. The Yuncheng District People’s Procuratorate of Guiyang City, Guizhou Province, charged the defendant Huang Zhousen with the crime of organizing and leading pyramid selling activities, and the charge is confirmed by this court. After being notified by the public security organs by phone, the defendant Huang Zhousen reported to the case and confessed his criminal facts truthfully, which is a voluntary surrender and can be mitigated. The sentencing suggestion of the public prosecutor is appropriate, and this court adopts it. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 224-1, 67, 52, 53, and 64 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: The defendant Huang Zhousen was convicted of the crime of organizing and leading pyramid selling activities and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 yuan (the term of imprisonment shall be calculated from the date of the implementation of the judgment. Detention prior to the implementation of the judgment shall be counted as one day for each day of detention, i.e., from March 31, 2020, to March 30, 2023. The fine shall be paid within one month after the judgment takes effect.).

　　32. Civil First Instance Judgment Document on Dispute over Property Damage Compensation between Ma Ming and Yan Juhua

　　Case Number: (2021)Min 0212 Civ 4906

　　Case Reason: Dispute over Property Damage Compensation

　　Judgment Date: 2021.11.18

　　Trial Court: Tong’an District People’s Court of Xiamen City, Fujian Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Trial Personnel: Lin Rongtang

　　Judgment Reason: After review, the court believes that Yan Juhua, on the pretext that the issuance of TXT coins requires Ethereum to be injected into the guarantee fund as a margin, collected Ethereum from Ma Ming and others. Subsequently, Ma Ming failed to obtain the return of the aforementioned Ethereum from Yan Juhua, and up to now, it is impossible to contact Yan Juhua. Yan Juhua’s actions suspect illegal appropriation of others’ property. According to Article 11 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Handling of Economic Criminal Cases Involving Economic Disputes: Where the people’s courts, as economic disputes, after trial, believe that the case does not involve economic disputes but has economic criminal suspicion, the case shall be ruled out of jurisdiction, and relevant materials shall be transferred to public security or procuratorial organs. The case of property damage compensation dispute between Ma Ming and Yan Juhua has been investigated and confirmed by this court that Yan Juhua is suspected of economic crime, and the lawsuit should be dismissed. In accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Handling of Economic Disputes Involving Economic Criminal Suspicion, the following decision is made:

　　Judgment Result: The lawsuit filed by the plaintiff Ma Ming is dismissed.

　　Civil First Instance Judgment and Ruling on Contract Dispute between Tang Feihu and Liu Yingshan

　　Case Number: (2021) YU0304 Minchu No. 1822

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Judgment Reason: After review, the court believes that the People’s Bank of China, the Central Cyberspace Administration, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, and other ten departments issued the Notice on Further Preventing and Handling the Risks of Speculative Trading and Investment in Online Casinos and How to Find Them (

　　Judgment Result: The court驳回原告Tang Feihu’s lawsuit.

　　34. Civil first-instance judgment of the dispute over network service contract between Liu Xinyang and Shenzhen Xingji Cloud Storage Technology Co., Ltd.

　　Case Number: (2021) Yue 0303 Minchu 23259

　　Case Reason: Contract dispute

　　Judgment Date: 2021.10.29

　　Hearing Court: Shenzhen Luohu District People’s Court, Guangdong Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Hearing Officer: Luo Huanxiang

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that this case is a dispute over a network service contract. Although the plaintiff and the defendant have not signed a written contract, the plaintiff has opened an account with the defendant, and a network service contract relationship has actually been established. In this case, the plaintiff uses the storage space of the defendant’s company’s storage server for Filecoin mining to obtain Filecoin coins, and the defendant provides storage space and technical services for this. Filecoin coins have the characteristics of non-issuance by monetary authorities, existence in a digital form through the use of distributed accounts, and do not have legal tender status. They are not equivalent to legal currency in terms of legal status. The court does not provide legal protection for the Filecoin coins obtained through the rental of storage space and technical services provided by the defendant’s company. The court does not support the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to pay 115.92 Filecoin coins to his account. As for the change of the plaintiff’s claim submitted after the hearing, this request was not submitted within the statutory period, and the court does not approve it. In summary, in accordance with Article 8 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, Paragraph 1 of Article 64 and Article 142 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: The court驳回原告Liu Xinyang’s all claims for relief. The case handling fee of 1300 yuan is borne by the plaintiff.

　　35. First-instance civil judgment of the dispute over entrusted contract between Shanghai Qinju Industrial Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yuner Calculation Technology Co., Ltd.

　　Case Number: (2021) Jing 0101 Minchu 6309

　　Case Reason: Dispute over entrusted contract

　　Judgment Date: 2021.10.25

　　Hearing Court: Beijing Dongcheng District People’s Court

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Hearing Officer: Feng Ning

　　裁判理由：本院认为，根据在案证据与原被告双方的诉辩意见，本案的争议焦点为案涉挖矿行为的性质认定、效力评价以及责任负担问题，以下分述之： 一、案涉挖矿行为的性质 比特币（Bitcoin）是一种通过特定计算机程序计算出来的虚拟电子货币，具有去中心化、总量有限、使用不受地域限制和匿名性等特点，是一种结合了开源软件工程模式、密码学原理和工作量证明机制的开源程序。每个参与者在执行特定算法成功时，就有机会获得一定数量的比特币作为奖励，通过这种途径获得比特币的方法被称为“挖矿”。2013年12月3日，中国人民银行等五部门联合下发《关于防范比特币风险的通知》。该通知指出：从性质上看，比特币应当是一种特定的虚拟商品，不具有与货币等同的法律地位，不能且不应作为货币在市场上流通使用，各金融机构和支付机构不得开展与比特币相关的业务，各部门和金融机构、支付机构……加强对社会公众货币知识的教育，将……正确看待虚拟商品和Online casino and How to find it 、理性投资、合理控制投资风险、维护自身财产安全等观念纳入金融知识普及活动的内容，引导社会公众树立正确的货币观念和投资理念。2021年1月1日施行的《中华人民共和国民法典》第一百二十七条规定，法律对数据、网络虚拟财产的保护有规定的，依照其规定。但目前尚无法律对比特币等虚拟商品作出具体规定，故对于比特币以及比特币挖矿活动的性质认定，本院与上述中国人民银行等五部门联合下发的《关于防范比特币风险的通知》精神维持相同的理解，即比特币系一种特定虚拟商品，而比特币挖矿活动系通过一定设备及行为获取虚拟商品比特币的相关投资活动。本案中，原被告双方对进行比特币挖矿活动均不持异议，在案涉685台服务器（矿机）的所有权归属被告之前，由被告提供相应技术服务和基础设施服务，负责管理维护原告托管的该685台矿机进行挖矿活动，原告支付相应费用，挖矿所得比特币交付原告。基于此，从形式上看，原被告双方之间形成了具有委托、服务特点的综合性合同关系，但从本质上看，该挖矿活动系原告追求比特币收获的风险投资活动，投资者须自行承担相关投资风险。二、案涉挖矿行为的效力评价 《中华人民共和国民法典》第九条规定，民事主体从事民事活动，应当有利于节约资源、保护生态环境。而比特币挖矿活动，电力能源消耗巨大，不利于高质量发展、节能减排和碳达峰、碳中和的实现。加之，Including Bitcoin, the production and trading link of Online casino and How to find it has prominent derivative risks, has become a speculative tool, and there is potential risk of threatening national financial security and social stability. On May 21, 2021, the Fifth Fifty-first Meeting of the Financial and Economic Stability and Development Committee of the State Council required the crackdown on Bitcoin mining and trading activities. On September 3, 2021, the National Development and Reform Commission, the People’s Bank of China, and other eleven departments issued the

　　Judgment Result: The lawsuit request of Shanghai Qinju Industrial Co., Ltd. as the plaintiff is rejected. The filing fee of the case is 53,900 yuan (including 5,000 yuan for preservation), which is borne by Shanghai Qinju Industrial Co., Ltd. as the plaintiff (already paid).

　　Civil First Instance Judgment Document on Dispute over Sales Contract between Zhang Kai, Jiangsu Bit Monkey Technology Co., Ltd., and others

　　Case Number: (2021)豫0225Minchu 4888

　　Case Type: Dispute over Sales Contract

　　Judgment Date: 2021.10.21

　　Court of Trial: People’s Court of Lanqiao County, Henan Province

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Judge: Yang Jinning

　　Judgment Reason: The court believes that the plaintiff’s application does not violate the law and the court has granted it. According to Article 154, Paragraph 1, Item (V) of the first clause of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the following decision is made:

　　Judgment Result: The plaintiff Zhang Kai is allowed to withdraw his lawsuit against the defendant Jiangsu Bitemon Technology Co., Ltd. and Huang Zhongsi. The case handling fee is reduced by half and collected 231 yuan, to be borne by the plaintiff Zhang Kai.

　　37. Criminal First Instance Judgment Document on the Crime of Theft by Dou Enxing and Wu Haiying

　　Case Number: (2021) JIN0116C10179

　　Case Type: Theft

　　Judgment Date: October 20, 2021

　　Trial Court: Tianjin Binhai New Area People’s Court

　　Trial Level: First Instance

　　Composition of the Bench: Wang Haixia, Liu Qingbo, Wang Jinxia

　　Judgment Reason: This court believes that the defendants Dou Enxing and Wu Haiying, with the purpose of illegal possession, together with others, through means such as privately replacing high-power transformers and altering electrical facilities, stole state electricity, in an amount that is very large, their actions constitute the crime of theft and should be punished. In the joint crime, Dou Enxing played a major role and was the ringleader, and had a prior criminal record, and should be sentenced more severely accordingly; Wu Haiying played a minor role and was an accomplice, and may be sentenced leniently according to law. Although the two defendants were summoned to the case by the public security organs, they did not truthfully confess to their joint theft of electricity with Wu Zhongying and the division of proceeds after their arrival. Therefore, they should not be regarded as having surrendered voluntarily, and the defense arguments about the two defendants having a voluntary surrender are not accepted. Dou Enxing expressed his willingness to confess and be punished at the trial and may be sentenced leniently according to law; Wu Haiying has confessed and made a partial refund, and may also be sentenced leniently according to law. In addition, Wu Haiying voluntarily confessed to her guilt, signed a written statement, and may be leniently dealt with according to Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The relevant defense arguments of the two defense attorneys are accepted. The charges brought by the public prosecutor are established, and the sentencing suggestion is appropriate, and this court supports it. In accordance with Article 264, Paragraph 1, Article 25, Paragraph 1, Article 26, Paragraphs 1 and 4, Article 27, Paragraph 3, Article 67, Paragraph 3, Article 64, Paragraphs 1 and 3, Article 72, Paragraphs 1 and 3, Article 76 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, and Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　Judgment Result: The defendant Dou Enxing is convicted of theft and sentenced to four years and six months of imprisonment, and a fine of 50,000 yuan. (The sentence shall be served from the date of the judgment. Detention prior to the execution of the judgment shall be deducted from the sentence at a rate of one day for one day, i.e., from March 20, 2021, to September 19, 2025. The fine shall be paid to this court within one month from the date of the judgment’s effectiveness.) The defendant Wu Haiying is convicted of theft and sentenced to three years of imprisonment suspended for five years, and a fine of 10,000 yuan. (The probation period shall be counted from the date of the judgment.) Wu Haiying shall be subject to community correctional education during the probation period. 40,000 yuan in seized money shall be returned to Tianjin Power Company according to law. The defendants Dou Enxing and Wu Haiying are ordered to continue to compensate Tianjin Power Company for the loss of 301,153.87 yuan in conjunction with Wu Zhongying.