Civil cases of virtual currency
one is economic contract disputes, such as sales contract disputes, loan contract disputes, contract disputes, construction project contract disputes, technology contract disputes, etc
Second, economic tort disputes; Such as intellectual property rights (such as patent rights, trademark rights) infringement disputes, ownership infringement disputes, management rights infringement disputes. In the market economy, the contract is a legal and universal form in which the equal market subjects establish the transaction relationship, jointly implement the transaction behavior, and pursue and realize the economic purpose. Therefore, the contract dispute is the main part of the economic dispute
virtual currency refers to non real currency. Well known virtual currencies, such as online currency of Internet company, QQ currency of Tencent company, q-point and voucher of Shanda company, micro currency launched by Sina (used for micro games, Sina reading, etc.), chivalrous Yuanbao (used for chivalrous road game), grain silver (used for bixue Qingtian game), and popular digital currencies in 2013, such as bitcoin, Laite currency, Fuyuan currency, etc. At present, hundreds of digital currencies are issued all over the world. Popular in the circle & quot; The legend of "bitkin, Wright silver".
according to the interpretation of the Supreme People's court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues concerning the specific application of law in handling criminal cases of fraud, the standard of "large amount" (i.e. filing standard) is to defraud public and private property worth 3000 yuan to 10000 yuan or more. The specific amount of the starting point of punishment is more clearly stipulated in various localities.
According to the news on February 10, 2018, on September 4, 2017, seven ministries and commissions of the people's Republic of China issued the notice on preventing the financing risk of token issuance, which regulates the issuance of tokens. In the notice, the nature of all kinds of tokens and "virtual currency" is clearly defined: it is not issued by the monetary authority, and it has no monetary attributes such as legal compensation and mandatory, It does not have the same legal status as currency and cannot and should not be used as currency in the market. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that all kinds of "virtual currency" still have a certain property value and are part of the property of the holder. So, how to identify the nature of the theft of such tokens
In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of "virtual token" holders, the author intends to discuss such issues through a relevant news report and relevant casesstealing bitcoin
recently, a news report said that Haidian police in Beijing cracked a case of destroying computer information system. The suspect Zhong used his administrator's authority to modify the company's computer applications and steal 100 bitcoins. Before he could sell the stolen money, Zhong was arrested by the police. At present, Zhong was detained for the crime of destroying computer information system
it can be seen from the report that the police detained the perpetrator for stealing bitcoin on suspicion of damaging the computer information system. The crime of destroying the computer information system stipulated in Article 286 of the criminal law of our country refers to the act of deleting, modifying, adding or interfering with the functions of the computer information system in violation of the provisions of the state, resulting in the abnormal operation of the computer information system and serious consequences, or deleting, modifying or interfering with the data and application programs stored, processed or transmitted in the computer information system Modifying or adding operations with serious consequences, or deliberately making or spreading destructive programs such as computer viruses, which affect the normal operation of the computer system with serious consequences
In the author's opinion, this crime is one of the crimes of impairing social management order in Chapter 6 of the criminal law, that is, the legal interest protected by this crime is actually the public order of our society, not the property interests of the digital currency holders, which in fact denies the property value of digital currency, It is only protected as a data or system function in a computer system. The author thinks that there is some irrationality in this wayfirst of all, in the notice on the prevention of bitcoin risk issued in 2013, it is mentioned that bitcoin is not a real currency because it is not issued by the monetary authority and does not have such monetary attributes as legal compensation and compulsion. Bitcoin has four main characteristics: no centralized issuers, limited amount, no geographical restrictions and anonymity. Because it belongs to a specific virtual commodity in nature The notice also clearly mentioned that bitcoin does not have the same legal status as currency and should not be used as currency in the market. However, as a virtual commodity, the property value behind bitcoin cannot be ignored
Secondly, Article 127 of the general provisions of the civil law, which came into effect on October 1 last year, stipulates that if the law has provisions on the protection of data and network virtual property, such provisions shall prevail. Although only the protection of the network virtual property has made the principle provisions, but it can not be denied that this shows our country's attitude towards the protection of the network virtual property. Although there is no special law for the protection of data and network virtual property in China, from the perspective of the general provisions of civil law, it is predicted that there will be relevant legislation in the futurefinally, from the relevant cases, we can also see the recognition of the property attribute of virtual currency such as bitcoin in China's judicial practice. In April and may 2013, Liu premeditated to set up a bitcoin trading platform, so he recruited Jin and Huang (both sentenced) to jointly set up a "bitcoin" trading platform. During this period, Liu, Huang, Jin, Jin and the defendant he, in addition to other acts of directly stealing customers' funds, also frequently cashed RMB by selling customers' bitcoins, and transferred 120 bitcoins from the website. Finally, the court convicted and punished the defendant for fraud, and the bitcoin transferred by the defendant was also included in the property loss of the victim. Therefore, from the judicial cases, we can also get the recognition of the property attributes of virtual currency such as bitcoin
based on the above reasons, the author thinks that it may be unreasonable to regulate the theft of virtual currency only as the crime of damaging computer information system. We should face up to the hidden property value and consider the application of the crime of infringing property in China's criminal law. Only in this way can we effectively protect the legitimate rights and property of digital currency holders in China
learned from the Xi'an Municipal Public Security Bureau's opening branch recently that the "3. 30" network hacker theft virtual currency case was broken down nearly half a year, and 3 suspect suspects were all arrested. The initial investigation found that the gang involved in the case reached 600 million yuan. p>
on March 30, 2018, the economic development branch of Xi'an Public Security Bureau received an alarm from the victim Zhang, claiming that his personal computer was suspected to have been illegally intruded, and a large number of virtual currencies such as bitcoin and Ethereum were looted, with a market value of over 100 million yuan. The Municipal Public Security Bureau quickly set up a special group to carry out the detection work
has been examined by the 3 suspects as hacker. Many illegal gains have been obtained through illegal invasion, control of company's enterprise and personal network system, and the amount of suspect involved has reached 600 million yuan. At present, the case is still under further investigation
on November 1, 2005, Qiu Hui found that three of the company's online accounts with virtual currency were frozen, so he unfrozen the three accounts and bought all the company's game cards with the virtual currency of 1624 519 karat, worth more than 162000 yuan. Qiu Hui sold the game cards to others at a low price, making a profit of more than 150000 yuan. On June 28, 2006, when Qiu Hui was investigated by the company, he admitted most of the facts of the crime and returned 120000 yuan to the company. The rest of the money was wasted by Qiu Hui
after the trial and judgment of the court of first instance, Qiu Hui refused and appealed to the second intermediate people's court
after hearing, the second people's court held that Qiu Hui, as a manager of the company, took advantage of his position to embezzle the company's money, and the amount was huge. His behavior constituted the crime of embezzlement and should be punished according to law. The judgment of the first instance is correct and should be upheld< br /> http://www.fcx114.com/cxbg/7451.html
it should be in the past two weeks that the Korean court accepted a case concerning virtual currency and made a judgment to the effect that it recognized the legal status of virtual currency as private property of citizens. The private property of citizens is of course protected by law, and the court decides that the infringer loses. Then I remember that the article also mentioned that there is no case of virtual currency in China so far, so the judgment of South Korea can be said to be the initial attitude of the legal profession towards virtual currency
because it is on the mobile phone, there is no way to search the original text for you. That's all I remember. I hope it can help you.