A Beijing-based Chinese intermediate court recently upheld a lower court ruling that found cryptocurrencies are virtual property protected by law. The court found that regulations issued by the Bank of China and others merely prohibit the circulation of virtual currencies.
lending practices prohibited by law.”
The Intermediate Court of China recently upheld a lower court ruling that designated Litecoin as virtual property protected by the country’s law, according to the court. The court clarified that the country’s relevant administrative regulations only prohibit the circulation of virtual currencies and their use as currency.
The Beijing-based court’s ruling came in response to a request by China resident Ding Hao to vacate the lower court’s ruling in a case in which he is accused of failing to return 33,000 lite coins (LTC) in accordance with his contract with Zhai Wenjie The case was.
According todocuments released by the court, on December 5, 2014, Hao received 50,000 LTCfrom Wenjie, which he was obligated to repay in four installments. The last repayment was for 8,334
LTC
; 29} LTC was to have been paid by October 15, 2015, the court documents state.
However, Hao argued that the lower court erred in ruling in favor of Wenzi, citing provisions issued by the Bank of China and other relevant departments stating that virtual currency is not protected by law. Hao further argued that the loan agreement with Wenjie should not be protected by law because he considered it a “loan action prohibited by law.”
‘LTC is a network’
Nevertheless, the Chinese intermediate court rejected Hao’s argument, holding that the regulations cited by defendants were merely “regulatory opinions” and that they in no way diminished defendants’ obligations It held.
With respect to cryptocurrencies, the court found thatLTCis a “cryptocurrency” butLTCis not; LTCis a “network currency” and still lacks key characteristics of a currency such as “legal compensation and enforceability.” However, cryptocurrencies have the characteristics of virtual property, and according to the court, Wenjie has rights arising from its ownership of such property.
“The Court finds that Litecoin has the characteristics of virtual property and virtual goods…. Zhai Wenjie enjoys corresponding property rights and grounds for property claims,” the court document stated.
As a result, the intermediate court upheld the lower court’s ruling and ruled that Hao must return the outstanding 33,000 LTC to Wenjie; LTCmust be returned to Wenjie; and LTC
must be returned to Wenjie. Bitcoin.com News reported that earlier this year earlier in May reported a similar story from China involving Bitcoin.
Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons