Case background and issues
If the court tells you that although your USDT was stolen, the related behavior falls under illegal financial activities, and the USDT or funds from selling coins will be confiscated rather than returned to you, can you accept it?
Zhang San and Li Si met online due to trading USDT and conducted multiple transactions. However, Zhang San did not transfer the coins to Li Si as agreed. After Li Si found Zhang San, he was forced by Zhang San and others to hand over his wallet private key, resulting in Li Si's USDT being stolen. After the case was filed, Zhang San and others were arrested and identified as committing robbery. However, the court's judgment pointed out that, according to the notice jointly issued by the People's Bank of China and ten other departments (regarding further prevention and handling of risks in virtual currency trading speculation), Li Si's USDT trading behavior falls under illegal financial activities. Therefore, the USDT or the funds from selling coins should be handled by the relevant departments according to the law and may be confiscated.
Legal analysis and disputes
Basis of the court's judgment:
The court believes that Li Si's USDT trading behavior falls under illegal financial activities based on the notice issued in 2021 (regarding further prevention and handling of risks in virtual currency trading speculation). This notice clearly states that activities related to virtual currency are illegal financial activities and any behavior involving virtual currency trading is not legally protected.
Lawyer's viewpoint:
However, Li Si's lawyer believes that there are issues with the court's judgment, specifically as follows:
1. Legal effect of the notice:
According to Article 16 of the Administrative Penalty Law, apart from legal regulations and rules, other normative documents cannot establish administrative penalties. Although the notices from 2013, the 94 announcement in 2017, and the 924 notice in 2021 have clear prohibitive regulations on virtual currency trading, they themselves do not have the legal effect to establish administrative penalties.
2. Definition of illegal financial activities:
The 'illegal financial activities' referred to in the notice mainly target virtual currency exchanges, token issuance financing, and other business activities. In Li Si's case, when USDT was robbed or scammed, the transaction was not completed, so it should not be recognized as illegal financial activity.
3. Reasonableness of return and confiscation:
Lawyers believe that Li Si, as the victim, suffered property loss in a criminal case because his USDT was stolen. Even if there are legal risks associated with USDT trading, the act of robbery itself is a criminal act, and as a victim, Li Si should receive reasonable compensation for his property loss.
Conclusions and reflections
Is the court's judgment reasonable?
From a legal perspective, the court's judgment seems to have its basis, but the lawyer's viewpoint also has certain reasonableness. Although Li Si's USDT trading behavior has legal risks, the act of robbery itself is a criminal act, and as a victim, Li Si should receive reasonable compensation for his property loss.
What do you all think?
Do you think the court's judgment is reasonable? Should Li Si's USDT be confiscated, or should it be returned to him? Feel free to leave a comment to discuss and share your thoughts.
Recently, I have been studying Conan and heard it is a Dogecoin from the Trump series, can be studied and observed #币安上线BERA #微策略募资支持比特币战略 #山寨币走势展望 #TRUMP #Conan