Break big blowout!The “10 million” I lent just flew?

2022-05-01 0 By

As the saying goes, it is only natural to repay debts.In one case, however, the lender paid the borrower not in traditional currency but in ether, a so-called virtual currency.The Siming District People’s Court in Xiamen, Fujian province, recently heard a private lending case involving virtual currencies. The court ruled that the contract was invalid and rejected the plaintiff’s claim.The plaintiff Lin said that in June 2018, Lin as a lender and Liu mou signed a loan agreement, agreed: Liu Mou to borrow 10 million yuan Lin, Lin mou to buy equivalent digital assets ether, into the account specified by Liu Mou, Liu Mou should be in June 2020 to return the loan in the form of RENMINBI Lin mou.Lin said that after the agreement was signed, Lin transferred 3165 ether coins to liu’s designated account.Liu then issued a receipt to confirm receipt of Lin 10 million yuan.After Liu mou did not repay in accordance with the agreement, Lin mou then filed a lawsuit to siming District Court, asking Liu mou to repay loan principal 10 million yuan and the corresponding interest.After the trial, the court holds that private lending refers to the behavior of financing between and among natural persons, legal persons and other organizations.According to the Notice on Preventing financing Risks of Token Issuance, token issuance financing means that financing subjects raise bitcoin, Ether and other so-called virtual currencies from investors through illegal sale and circulation of tokens. In essence, it is an illegal public financing behavior without approval.Suspected of illegal issuance of tokens, illegal issuance of securities, illegal fund-raising, financial fraud, pyramid schemes and other illegal and criminal activities.Tokens or virtual currencies used in token issuance financing are not issued by monetary authorities, do not have legal compensatory and mandatory currency attributes, do not have the same legal status as currency, and cannot and should not be circulated as currency in the market.The hype on further prevention and disposal of virtual currency trading risk notice, virtual money don’t have the legal status and legal currency equivalent, the currency and the etheric, teda currency such as virtual currency has not issued, the monetary authorities to use encryption technology and distributed account or similar technology, the main characteristics such as digital form, do not have law countervail sex,It should not and cannot be used as money in the market.Xiaobian reminds you again!If any legal person, unincorporated organization or natural person invests in virtual currency and related derivatives in violation of public order and good customs, the relevant civil legal act shall be invalid, and the loss caused thereby shall be borne by them.Therefore, ether currency cannot and should not be used as currency in the market, not to mention as the subject matter of the loan contract. Therefore, Lin contends that the way of delivering ether currency to complete the loan delivery does not comply with the loan delivery method stipulated by law, and the loan agreement involved in the case does not comply with the loan contract stipulated by law.The transaction of ether currency between Lin and Liu disrupted economic and financial order, violated public order and good customs, and violated social and public interests. Therefore, the loan agreement signed by Lin and Liu is invalid, and the losses caused by this shall be borne by the parties themselves.In the end, the court ruled against Lin’s lawsuit.Source: people’s FaYuanBao reporter: AnHaiTao | correspondent: a-li Chen Zhu Beini | editor: LuLu Dong Xing rain