Blockchain circle

One stop hot information platform

About us:

Blockchain circle provides the latest information about blockchain, digital currency, digital wallet, exchange, metauniverse, bitcoin, Ethereum, contract, financial management and so on, and always pays attention to the latest market...

Was hacked by "mining machinery" company for 60million? Court: no claim

Time : 10/06/2022 Author : rgoxh3 Click : + -
        According to the wechat official account of the "Beijing Third People's intermediate court", the court recently announced a second instance case of bitcoin "mining" contract dispute. Previously, the first instance judgment of the case was made on December 14, 2021, which was the first case in which the Beijing court ruled that the bitcoin "mining" contract was invalid. The plaintiff company was not satisfied with the results of the first instance. After appealing, the second instance of the Beijing third intermediate people's Court upheld the original judgment, holding that the "mining" contract harmed the social and public interests, thus violating public order and good customs, and ruled that the contract was invalid. The court also does not support the corresponding claim. In 2019, fengfujiuxin, the plaintiff company, paid 10million yuan to Zhongyan Zhichuang, the defendant company, and entrusted the latter to buy "mining machines" and "operate mining".
 
        As a result, Zhongyan Zhichuang didn't provide the original record of the income of "mining" in the whole process, and only paid 18.3463 bitcoins for Fengfu Jiuxin in total. According to the market value at the time of the first instance judgment, it is only about 5.5 million. Fengfujiuxin didn't get rich by "mining". He lost nearly half of his money, not to mention that a huge amount of bitcoin may be embezzled &hellip& hellip;。 The plaintiff in this case is Beijing fengfujiuxin Marketing Technology Co., Ltd. (Party A of the contract, hereinafter referred to as "fengfujiuxin"), and the defendant is Zhongyan Zhichuang blockchain Technology Co., Ltd. (Party B of the contract, hereinafter referred to as "Zhongyan Zhichuang"). In May, 2019, the two sides signed three contracts successively, agreeing that Fengfu Jiuxin entrusted Zhongyan Zhichuang to purchase, manage the micro storage space server (i.e. "mining machine"), operate "mining machine mining", and pay the "mining" income.
 
        The transaction details agreed in the three contracts are: Party A fengfujiuxin entrusts Party B Zhongyan Zhichuang to purchase 1542 "mining machines", with a unit price of 5040 yuan per set and a contract amount of 7.771680 yuan; Party A entrusts all "mining machines" to Party B for management and pays Party B a management service fee of 2.22832 million yuan for a period of one year; The value-added service agreement signed by both parties stipulates that the income of bitcoin "mining" will be settled on the same day, of which 7% will be allocated to Party B Zhongyan Zhichuang. After calculation, the total amount of the first two contracts was 10million yuan, and fengfujiuxin also paid the 10million yuan to Zhongyan Zhichuang on May 20, 2019, and noted the payment for goods.
 
        However, despite repeated communications and reminders during the period of Fengfu Jiuxin, Zhongyan Zhichuang did not provide the original record of bitcoin mining machine revenue during the service period, and only delivered 18.3463 bitcoins to Fengfu Jiuxin in 2019. The two sides had a dispute about this, and Feng fujiuxin sued Zhongyan Zhichuang to the court. With reference to the price of bitcoin displayed on the industry's famous bitcoin data website (Bxx), Feng fujiuxin calculated that during the service period, he should receive 296.5117976 bitcoins as agreed, minus what the other party has paid, and the amount of bitcoin that Zhongyan Zhichuang should deliver is 2781654976, or $9.55812.36 (about 64 million yuan) according to the price of bitcoin on January 25, 2021, At the same time, compensate for the loss of "mining machine" after the expiration of the service.
 
        In this regard, Zhongyan Zhichuang said that he had fulfilled his contractual obligations. Because fengfujiuxin did not pay the electricity bill in time, the server could not run, so he could not bear the corresponding responsibility. On December 14, 2021, Chaoyang Court, the court of first instance, ruled that the "mining" agreement should be invalid due to damage to social and public interests, and rejected all litigation claims of Fengfu Jiuxin company. Fengfu Jiuxin company refused to accept and appealed. The second instance of Beijing third intermediate people's Court upheld the original judgment, holding that the "mining" contract harmed the social and public interests, thus violating public order and good customs, and ruled that the contract was invalid. Xiao SA, a partner of Beijing Dacheng Law Firm, said that the first and second instance judgments of the case upheld the same logic in determining the invalidity of the "mining" contract.
 
        That is, the reason why the "mining" contract is invalid is to damage the social public interest, and then violate public order and good customs. Therefore, according to the second paragraph of Article 153 of the civil code, "civil legal acts contrary to public order and good customs are invalid", the contract is determined to be invalid. In addition, a number of lawyers analyzed that the judgment was a response to a series of supervisory policies such as the notice on further preventing and disposing of the risk of speculation in virtual currency transactions jointly issued by the central bank and other 10 ministries and commissions on September 24, 2021. At the same time, it shows to the outside world that the debt generated by the "mining" of virtual currency is not protected by law. Some people in the currency circle disclosed to observer.com that the cooperation mode between the two defendants in the judgment is actually similar to what is usually called "mining machine trusteeship".
 
        Trusteeship can be roughly divided into two modes. One is to send the mining machine purchased by yourself to the mine of the trusteeship platform for trusteeship mining; The other is that the mining machine is provided by the custody platform, and the buyer directly purchases from the custody platform to participate in the custody mining. Based on the fact that "mining business" travels in gray areas all year round, the risk of this entrusted mode is infinitely amplified. For the buyer, if he chooses to entrust the mining machine to the platform, the authenticity cannot be guaranteed first. Moreover, due to the lack of supervision in the industry, the platform is mixed, and the mining machines purchased by customers and the revenue promised by the platform may not exist at all. What's more, the platform may directly run away with money. Observer network noted that the two companies signed a series of "mining" contracts in May 2019.
 
        Take the first contract signed by both parties, that is, the contract time point when Fengfu Jiuxin entrusted Zhongyan Zhichuang to purchase "mining machines", which was on May 6, 2019, and the price of bitcoin was about $5700. By May 20, when fengfujiuxin paid 10million yuan, the price of bitcoin had risen to about $8000, and by the end of May, it had risen to about $8600. By December 14, 2021, when the first instance was decided, the price of bitcoin had fluctuated around $48000, equivalent to about 300000 yuan. According to the time point of the first instance judgment, fengfujiuxin received 18.3463 bitcoins, with a total value of about 5.5 million yuan, which is also the only payment received in the transaction between fengfujiuxin and Zhongyan Zhichuang.
 
        By calculation, fengfujiuxin lost nearly half of its investment. If it is true, as Feng fujiuxin said, Zhongyan Zhichuang also embezzled 278 bitcoins, which is equivalent to that Zhongyan Zhichuang didn't spend a penny and made more than 60 million yuan (US $9.55812.36) in vain. No wonder Feng fujiuxin knew that his behavior was illegal and had to go to court. However, because the "mining" behavior itself was illegal, the court directly ruled that the plaintiff lost the lawsuit, and did not disclose the actual amount of bitcoin dug by Zhongyan Zhichuang. Therefore, the claim amount of Fengfu Jiuxin was only based on estimation, and it was unknown whether it was in line with the facts. In an online forum held by "coin circle" in March 2020, the company of "Zhongyan Zhichuang" was introduced as: founded in 2018, it is subordinate to China Urban Development Research Institute and is mainly committed to the research and application of blockchain technology.
 
        The business scope of the company is described as providing blockchain product solutions for enterprises, using blockchain technology to improve and promote the construction and development of smart cities and urban databases, and studying the typical problems of blockchain technology in asset trading, agricultural traceability, energy storage and other industries. Zhongyan Zhichuang also released investment invitation information, saying that in the layout of "mining industry", it has always maintained close cooperation with major mining machine manufacturers, mine pools, mine owners, etc. "In 2019, the company invested hundreds of millions of yuan in the mining industry and achieved a lot of returns. This year (2020) will continue to add capital and resources to integrate the mining industry, including but not limited to the packaging of relevant mining resources into listed companies.
 
        In addition, the Fengshui mine of Zhongyan Zhichuang currently has more than 100000 loads in the process of attracting investment. You are welcome to discuss cooperation. ". Participating in this online forum is Pan Guoli, the technical director of Zhongyan Zhichuang company. According to the introduction on the Internet, pan Guoli deeply cultivated the "currency circle". Online comments on Pan Guoli include: the founder of coin rich, the founder of coin trend, the founder of coin fly, a big data analyst in the bitcoin industry, a founding member of the Asian blockchain DACA Association, a senior digital asset investor, who has written a large number of reports on the development of the digital asset industry, is a preacher and researcher in the industry, and has a high reputation in the industry. Tianyancha information shows that "Zhongyan Zhichuang blockchain Technology Co., Ltd." was established in December 2018, with a registered capital of 60million yuan, and the legal representative is Wang Huanzi.
 
        Its shareholder is "China Urban Development Research Institute Co., Ltd", with a shareholding ratio of 100%. China Urban Development Research Institute Co., Ltd. was established on June 7th, 1983. Its legal representative is Yang Xu. The enterprise type is a limited liability company solely invested by legal persons. According to its official website, Zhongcheng academy is a comprehensive research institution in the fields of policy consultation, urban research, planning and design, and urban and rural construction in China. Formerly under the Ministry of housing and urban rural development of the people's Republic of China, it is the window organization of the China Real Estate Association of the Ministry of housing and urban rural development, with nearly 700 employees.
 
        
Previous:In the future, the industrial pilot zone will be settled in Ningbo, which will become the source of national blockchain technology innovation
Next:No more

Related articles:



© 2005-2032 | Blockchain Circle & & All Rights Reserved    Sitemap1 Sitemap2 If there is infringement, please contact us at: