Hangzhou Internet Court files first Bitcoin property infringement case, virtual | lirik pluto projector terjemahan, violetas baccarat, dunia 777 slot online

According to an article on the Hangzhou Internet Court’s public account titled “The first Bitcoin “mining machine” dispute case has just been heard, and now we encounter “Bitcoin” again!”, this is the first case involving “Bitcoin” online property infringement disputes accepted by the Hangzhou Internet Court. It is also the second case of disputes arising from infringement of other people’s property on the Internet since the “Regulations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues in the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts” determined a new jurisdictional dispute case.

At the same time, the Hangzhou Internet Court emphasized that the acceptance of the case is only the beginning. Next, the Hangzhou Internet Court will explore the identification standards and trial rules of virtual property through professional trials of such cases, and reasonably define the legal responsibilities of e-commerce platforms.

Thinking about it now, I still have vivid memories of considering filing a case in the "Hangzhou Internet Court" as a "cause of action for tort liability disputes." It is gratifying to see the Hangzhou Internet Court's forward-looking approach in exploring virtual property identification standards and trial rules through such cases.

At this stage, the broad extension of virtual currency is very rich. Wang Xin of the Central Bank’s Gold and Silver Bureau believes that in addition to online game virtual currency, it also includes Internet points, as well as the scarcity of blockchain technology involved in this case and the encrypted digital currency represented by Bitcoin.

In fact, our country’s laws have long had an official definition of “virtual currency”.

On June 4, 2009, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Commerce jointly issued the "Notice on Strengthening the Management of Virtual Currency in Online Games" (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice"), which contains a clear definition of virtual currency: The online game virtual currency referred to in this Notice refers to a virtual exchange tool issued by an online game business unit and purchased directly or indirectly by online game users using legal currency at a certain proportion. It exists outside the game program, is stored in the server in the form of electromagnetic recording, and is represented by a specific digital unit. Online game virtual currency is used to exchange online game services within a specified range and within a specified period of time provided by the issuing enterprise, in the form of prepaid recharge cards, prepaid amounts or points for online games, but does not include game props obtained in game activities.

The "Interim Measures for the Administration of Online Games" (hereinafter referred to as the "Measures") promulgated by the Ministry of Culture in Order No. 49 in June 2010 and subsequently came into effect, after subsequent revisions in 2017, once again emphasized the definition of virtual currency in Article 2, Paragraph 4. At the same time, Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the "Measures" stipulates: The scope of use of online game virtual currency is limited to the exchange of online game products and services provided by itself, and shall not be used to pay, purchase physical goods, or exchange products and services of other units.

Therefore, there are two common types of "virtual currencies" based on games. One is Tencent's Q Coin, which belongs to the "virtual currency" mentioned in the above-mentioned "Notice" and "Measures"; the other, such as the gold coins in League of Legends and King of Glory, they belong to "currency props." The former is purchased by users with legal currency, which is used to "exchange" virtual props or services, such as using Q coins to purchase QQ shows or purchase League of Legends game skins; the latter is an important part of the virtual game world, and it plays the role of a general equivalent in the game and is used for consumption in the game. There is a big difference between the two in a legal sense.

We found that what we often mentionBitcoin and similar digital assets generated based on blockchain technology are essentially different from the above. It is neither a debt certificate (such as Q coins) nor a general equivalent in the game. Are the existing regulations and regulatory policies on virtual currencies still applicable? This is an issue that needs to be solved urgently in the next step.

In view of the above, the subsequent problem is that the legal issues behind virtual property are becoming more and more complex.

On the one hand, there are currently many types of digital currencies that exist in blockchain technology, and there is currently no official characterization. The lack of official characterization directly leads to the emergence of many courts that have very different verdicts in similar cases when trying cases. When the Chain Law team researched, sorted out and established the "Virtual Currency Case Database", they discovered that courts in economically developed areas have been exposed to "blockchain" and "digital currency" for a long time and have a deep understanding of them, so they are more accurate in determining facts and applying laws when judging related cases.

On the other hand, although the existing regulation and supervision system for game virtual currencies covers a wide range of areas, such as financial supervision, consumer protection and other systems, these regulations are relatively scattered, and high-level legislative regulations are absent, leaving the group in a leaderless situation. However, existing legal provisions are absent, there are few theoretical research results, and there is a lack of corresponding theoretical guidance. The most important thing is that the existing regulations and regulatory policies on virtual currencies are difficult to apply to the regulation of digital currencies such as Bitcoin.

The Hangzhou Internet Court, established on August 18, 2017, is my country’s first pilot court to focus on hearing Internet-related cases. In 2018, the Hangzhou Internet Court announced that the judicial blockchain platform was officially launched online, becoming the first court in the country to apply blockchain technology for trials. This marks another substantial step in the implementation of blockchain technology in my country’s judicial field.

The blockchain of "digital mutual trust mechanism" itself is consistent with the nature of modern business activities, and it may become the "cornerstone" of all industries in the future. As a major application of blockchain, digital currency itself relies on the Internet and computers. As blockchain enters the public eye, the volume of similar cases will inevitably increase dramatically in the future. This has been reflected in the data from the Judgment Document Network. Therefore, at this stage, there is an urgent need to establish unified identification standards and trial rules for the determination and resolution of virtual property disputes.

As a team of lawyers who have been committed to researching and exploring blockchain legal application issues and providing technological legal services, it is exciting to have the opportunity to participate in discussions on virtual property recognition standards and trial rules. But we are also deeply aware of how to identify virtual property and what are its standards? The answer to this question is relevant to everyone who holds digital currency, and we firmly believe that it will be relevant to everyone in the future. Therefore, on the one hand, we will make every effort to prepare for the subsequent court session of the case; on the other hand, we will also record the research results, subsequent trial status, case handling experience, etc. of this case and share them with everyone and discuss them with everyone.

Attachment: Brief introduction to the case

In November 2013, the plaintiff Wu purchased Bitcoin from a Shanghai Internet Technology Co., Ltd. through an online shopping platform operated by a Zhejiang Internet Co., Ltd. and stored it in the Bitcoin wallet provided by the company. In May 2018, when the plaintiff logged into the website operated by a Shanghai Internet Technology Co., Ltd. again, he found that the website had been deleted in 201Closed for 4 years. However, when the company closed its website, it did not give any hint to the plaintiff, making it impossible to retrieve the Bitcoins it purchased.

According to relevant regulations, Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are prohibited commodities. A Zhejiang Internet Co., Ltd. failed to perform its audit obligations and should also bear corresponding legal liabilities. In summary, the plaintiff requires the two defendants to jointly compensate for losses and bear all litigation costs of this case.

(Source: Babbitt)