The Judgement of Chinese Court show you the gate.io is not safty.

Intermediate People’s Court of Jinan City, Shandong ProvinceCivil Judgment(2018) Lu 01 Min Zhong No. 7523Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Wang Fuqiang, male, born on April 8, 1984, Han nationality, living in Xi’an, Shaanxi Province.Entrusted litigation agent: Wang Shaohua, lawyer of Shaanxi Handian Law Firm.Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Jinan Zhishu Information Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled in Jinan City, Shandong Province.Legal representative: Han Lin , manager.Entrusted litigation agent: Ma Minggang, lawyer of Shandong Dekang Law Firm.Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Han Lin , male, born on July 22, 1998, Han nationality , legal representative of Jinan Zhishu Information Technology Co., Ltd., residing in Jiaozhou City, Shandong Province.The above two appellees jointly appointed the litigation agent: Ma Minggang, lawyer of Shandong Dekang Law Firm.The appellant Wang Fuqiang dissatisfied with the civil judgment of the People’s Court of Jinan High-tech Industrial Development Zone (2017) Lu 0191 Minchu No. 2348 in the case of a contract dispute with the appellee Jinan Zhishu Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhishu Company) and Han Lin . File an appeal to this court. After this court filed the case on October 17, 2018, a collegial panel was formed in accordance with the law to conduct the trial. The case has now been concluded.Wang Fuqiang appeal: 1 verdict revoked; 2 commuted. Chilean several companies, Han Lin returned Bob Smith in the number of intellectual 19.6055 Bitcoin (BTC) custody of the company at; 3 a second instance court costs made. Chilean several companies, Han Lin bear. Facts and reasons: 1. The first-instance judgment used Wang Fuqiang’s evidence as a reason for not providing the original, and did not recognize the authenticity without review. The applicable legal basis is Article 64 and 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. Article 142, Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Applicability, Article 2 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation. The general rule of proof for “proving evidence” chooses the applicable law, and the failure to review the legality and authenticity of the evidence is a major error in the applicable law. First of all, the law stipulates that the burden of proof shall be allocated according to the inversion rule of burden of proof in this case. Article 28 of the “Electronic Signature Law of the People’s Republic of China” stipulates: “The electronic signer or the electronic signature relying party suffered losses due to civil activities based on the electronic signature certification service provided by the electronic certification service provider, and the electronic certification service provider cannot prove If he is not at fault, he shall bear the liability for compensation.” The Bite online transaction-related services provided by Zhishu in this case are part of the electronic signature authentication service content. The users of the Bite trading platform are electronic signers in the legal sense. Therefore, this case should be legally required. The application of special proof rules means that the burden of proof is inverted and the burden of proof is allocated. According to the rules of proof that the burden of proof is inverted, Zhishu Company shall provide evidence for its own no-fault, and ZhishuThe company only has to prove that Wang Fuqiang is not its user, or that Wang Fuqiang’s Bitcoin has not been lost on its trading platform, or that it has reached a compensation agreement with users including Wang Fuqiang and has obtained Wang Fuqiang’s consent, and it also has to prove that the evidence provided by Wang Fuqiang is perjury. Only under the circumstances can it be exempted from the responsibility of returning. Secondly, the telegram data submitted by Wang Fuqiang is also a type of original evidence and cannot be simply regarded as a copy. The data message downloaded from the smart data company’s trading platform should belong to a type of electronic evidence that is directly “generated, sent, received or stored” by the smart data company’s server as stipulated in Article 7 of the “Electronic Signature Law of the People’s Republic of China” . It should not be simply regarded as a copy. If the carrier of First Instance found evidence of content that is wisdom number the server is the original company, according to the reverse burden of proof rules as they should by the Chilean number provided the company, because the server owned by Chilean number of company owned and governed, the objective Bob Smith can not get. Even if Wang Fuqiang can obtain the server, according to the legal nature of the evidence content, the server is only the carrier of the evidence rather than the evidence itself. Therefore, the server is difficult to qualify as the original evidence. Only the content generated on the server is the original evidence. And Wang Fuqiang All the evidence provided is wisdom and numbersThe content directly generated and sent on the company’s server is the original evidence of a special type of evidence. Thirdly, regardless of whether the message data is the original, the people’s court should recognize its legality as a new type of evidence and conduct authenticity review. The authenticity cannot be judged by the simple standard of whether it is the original, and it cannot be regarded as non-traditional. The original document in the classification of evidence is waived for review. Article 3 of the “Electronic Signature Law of the People’s Republic of China” stipulates that “For contracts or other documents, documents and other documents in civil activities, the parties may agree to use or not use electronic signatures and data messages. The parties agree to use electronic signatures and data messages. , Shall not deny its legal effect just because it adopts the form of electronic signature and data message.” Article 4 stipulates that “the data message can be tangibly expressed, and the data message used for checking can be retrieved at any time, which is deemed to meet the requirements of laws and regulations. Written form”. Article 7 stipulates that “data messages shall not be rejected for use as evidence only because they are generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical, magnetic or similar means.” According to the above clauses, the court of first instance should recognize the legality of the evidence submitted by Wang Fuqiang in the first instance and review the authenticity of the evidence. Even according to the traditional classification of the evidence submitted by Bob Smith identified as a copy should also be in accordance with the rules of reverse burden of proof required by law Chilean several companies falsification. In addition, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 of the “Electronic Signature Law of the People’s Republic of China”, electronic certification service providers shall properly store information related to certification, and the information retention period shall be at least five years after the electronic signature certification certificate expires. Therefore, as long as the court of first instance examines the server and the original data of Zhishu Company, the authenticity of the evidence submitted by Wang Fuqiang in the first instance and the facts of the case can be thoroughly investigated. 2. The court of first instance was unclear as to whether Han Lin should bear joint liability for the debts of Zhishu Company. 1. Han Lin and Zhishu Company formed a de facto confusion of personality and should bear joint and several liabilities. The court of first instance refused to examine the evidence and refused to retrieve the evidence, which led to the fact that it was found to be relentless. WisdomThe company is a sole proprietorship of natural persons. The legal representative and shareholders are Han Lin . After investigation, Wang Fuqiang found out that when Wang Fuqiang was trading with Smart Numbers and Han Lin , he repeatedly found that the accounts he traded with were Han Lin’s personal accounts, and Han Lin used personal accounts for processing. In corporate business, there is a mix of business and funds that cannot be distinguished from personal property, corporate property and business. Wang Fuqiang submitted to the court of first instance screenshots of electronic data proving that Han Lin and the company constituted personality conflation. Because the existence of personality confusion between Han Lin and the company has a significant impact on the responsibility of this case, and the attorney is unable to obtain evidence, Wang Fuqiang applied to the court of first instance to obtain all the historical records of the transfer business between Han Lin and the company’s bank account. However, the court of first instance did not Can investigate. The court of first instance neither recognized the evidence provided by Wang Fuqiang that Han Lin and the company’s account were conflated, nor agreed to obtain the bank account records of Han Lin and the company in accordance with Wang Fuqiang’s application , but found that Han Lin should not be jointly and severally liable and lacked factual basis. clear. The court of second instance requested the historical records of Han Lin and the company’s bank account to find out more objective facts of personality confusion. 2. As the actual controller of the company , Han Lin transferred the company’s business and assets before the company’s debts were repaid, seriously damaging the interests of the company’s creditors, and shall be jointly and severally liable for the company’s debts in accordance with the law. On October 31, 2017, the Bitcoin trading platform announced that it would close Bitcoin transactions. During the subsequent announcement, Han LinTransferring the company’s Biter trading platform services and all business to a newly established company abroad, Han Lin is also the actual controller of this company. The above behavior of Han Lin caused the main business of the domestic Biter trading platform and the company’s important assets to have all been transferred abroad, the domestic company became a shell enterprise, and the company completely lost its debt solvency. Therefore, Han Lin, as the legal representative of a sole proprietorship of natural persons, transferred the company’s assets and business before repaying the company’s debts, seriously damaging the interests of the company’s creditors, and should be jointly and severally liable for the company’s debts in accordance with the law. 3. The facts and reasoning in the first-instance judgment are inconsistent, and the legal concept is wrong. 1. The first-instance judgment found on the fifth page the fact that “Wang Fuqiang lost Bitcoin on Biter.com on February 15, 2015”, which not only recognized Wang Fuqiang as a user of the Biter trading platform, but also recognized that the Biter trading platform lost Wang Fuqiang Bitcoin facts, but in the third and fourth page fifth page last three lines of thought Bob Smith and Chile number of companies, Han Lin did not sign the contract there is no contractual relationship, before and after the fact and in front of identified conflicts. 2. The first-instance judgment is in the third paragraph of the fourth page, and the second and sixth paragraphs of the fifth page all stated that Wang Fuqiang’s evidence is a printed copy, and the original carrier of the evidence cannot be submitted. Therefore, Wang Fuqiang’s evidence is not recognized. It is a legal conception. Mistake. In this case, the message data generated on the server is the original evidence itself. The message data in the printed copy is not necessarily the original evidence. The original carrier of evidence cannot be equated with the original evidence. The court of first instance equated the original carrier of evidence with the original evidence. The printout is equivalent to the message data evidence stored on the printout. Moreover, the obligation to submit evidence of the original carrier in Chile several companies, Han Lin , the first instance court may also ex officio retrieval, Bob the Court of First Instance did not submit Chi number of companies, Han LinThe server platform grounds, the legality of the evidence submitted in the first instance Bob Smith, authenticity and not intellectual several companies, Han Lin overthrow and the authenticity of the evidence submitted by Bob Smith, the legality of the case did not review found insufficient evidence to Bob Smith. , Lack of legal logic.Zhishu and Han Lin argued that the first-instance judgment was fair and just and should be maintained. Facts and reasons: 1. The registration of the trading platform is a virtual registration, and the real identity information of Wang Fuqiang cannot be verified. 2. Smart Numbers has converted 1,500 yuan per BTC into tokens of the same value based on the price when the Bitcoin was lost, and has paid hundreds of thousands of customers around the world based on humanitarianism, and the compensation has been in place, if any False is willing to bear all legal consequences. Smart Number reserves the responsibility to investigate the actual infringer for the infringement and recover the compensation paid in advance. 3. Smart Number Company not only advances all the tokens of the same value of losing customers, but also has given corresponding dividends. 4. After hundreds of thousands of lost customers around the world received fair and reasonable advance payments from Smart Data , almost no lawsuits were filed except Wang Fuqiang. 5. According to the “Notice on Preventing Bitcoin Risks” jointly issued by the People’s Bank of China, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, the Jinan Municipal People’s Government is responsible for financial work National documents such as “Jinan Biter formulates an exit plan to stop all trading operations on October 20th” and “Circular on the cleanup and rectification of Bitcoin and other virtual currency trading venues” printed on the office webpage. Smart Numbers has stopped all transactions in accordance with national regulations. Trading, no longer operating virtual currencies such as Bitcoin and tokens.Bob Smith prosecution request to the Court of First Instance: 1 Bob Smith in return. Number of intellectual Bitcoin custody of the company at 19.6055, by the Chilean several companies, Han Lin jointly and severally liable; 2 of the litigation costs. Chi number of companies, Han Lin bear.The court of first instance found the facts: Zhishu Company was established on September 26, 2016, and its main business scope is information technology development; network technology development and technical services; computer software and hardware technology development and technical services; computer software, hardware and auxiliary equipment, Sales of electronic products; Internet information services. Zhishu Company operated the Biter website after its establishment. Wang Fuqiang lost his Bitcoin on Biter.com on February 15, 2015. It was also found that on October 31, 2017, due to documents issued by the People’s Bank of China, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the Biter website involved in the case was shut down in accordance with the law.The court of first instance held that, in accordance with Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Applicability, the parties should provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based or the facts on which they refute the other party’s claims. Unless otherwise specified. Before the judgment is made, if the parties fail to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove their factual claims, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. In this case, Wang Fuqiang did not sign a related contract with Zhishu Company, and all the evidence submitted by Wang Fuqiang was printed. The original carrier of the evidence could not be submitted, that is, Wang Fuqiang failed to provide valid evidence to prove his contractual relationship with Zhishu Company. Wang Fuqiang advocated that Mind Data Company should return its 19.6055 bitcoins, but he was unable to submit sufficient evidence to prove the fact that he had reduced bitcoins and the specific amount on the website involved in the case. Therefore, the requirements for Bob Smith Chi number of companies returning its lawsuit 19.6055 Bitcoin, insufficient evidence, not support. Another evidence submitted was insufficient to prove that Han Lin and Chi number of companies exist personality confused, so the idea Han Lin bear joint and several liability lawsuit, not support.The court of first instance in accordance with Article 64 and Article 142 of the “Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China”, Article 90 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Application”, “Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures” “The second rule of the judgment: dismissed Wang Fuqiang’s litigation request. The case acceptance fee is 100 yuan, which shall be borne by Wang Fuqiang.In the second instance, the parties submitted evidence in accordance with the law on the appeal request, and this court organized the parties to exchange evidence and cross-examine. Wang Fuqiang submitted evidence 1. Two pages of ICBC details, intending to prove that Han Lin , the legal representative of Smart Numbers , used his account to handle the company’s finances, forming a conflation between the legal representative and the company’s business and shall bear joint and several liability for the company’s debts in accordance with the law; Evidence 2. Wisdom The company’s trading platform announced that it intends to prove that Han Lin , the legal representative of Smart Data , transferred the company’s business before paying off the company’s debts, causing complete business conflation between overseas companies and domestic companies, which would have a significant impact on domestic companies’ debts. Domestic companies’ debts should be imposed in accordance with the law. Jointly and severally liable. Zhishu and Han Lin cross-examined that the above evidence should be submitted in the first instance and was not submitted, and it is not new evidence; the account of evidence 1 is named Hu Chun, not Wang Fuqiang, and there is no remark on its purpose. The transaction time is October 17, 2016 , Has no obvious relationship with this case, and cannot prove Wang Fuqiang’s proving purpose; Smart Number ’s trading platform announcement has been closed, and the authenticity of evidence 2 cannot be verified, and it has nothing to do with this case.Chile number of companies, Han Lin submit evidence 1. bit child 100% redemption BTRX announcement; 2. evidence of the Chinese People’s Bank of pages printed, “the central People’s Bank of China Network Information Office of Information Industry and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce Administration of China Banking Regulatory Commission Securities Regulatory Commission CIRC on prevention tokens Announcement on Issuance Financing Risks; Evidence 3. “Circular on the Cleanup and Rectification of Bitcoin and Other Virtual Currency Trading Places” printed on the webpage of the Financial Work Office of Jinan City People’s Government; Evidence 4. “Notice on the Cleanup and Rectification of Bitcoin and Other Virtual Currency Trading Places” printed on the webpage of Jinan City People’s Government Financial Work Office; Evidence 4. Jinan Biter formulates an exit plan to stop all trading operations on October 20″; the above evidence intends to prove that the Smart Data trading platform has advanced to all lost customers tokens of the same value, and has given corresponding dividends. The current Smart Data transactions The platform has stopped all transactions in accordance with national regulations and no longer operates virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. Wang Fuqiang cross-examined that there was no objection to the authenticity of Evidence 1, but the content of the announcement was to redeem the token BTRX, and the request in this case was to request the return of Bitcoin, and the redemption business had nothing to do with this case; there was no objection to the authenticity of Evidence 2. However, this is the industry’s internal management regulations and has nothing to do with this case; there is no objection to the authenticity of evidence 3, but this is a prohibitive regulation in business management and has nothing to do with this case. The lawsuit in this case requires the return of Bitcoin, which is not subject to policy Impact: There is no objection to the authenticity of Evidence 4, but it has nothing to do with this case. It is only a notification of the transaction business and does not involve the return of Bitcoin. The compensation behavior of Smart Number is a unilateral act, and there is no consensus or agreement with the customer who lost Bitcoin, which is not enough to prove that Smart Number has processed it.Upon review the Court finds that the second trial evidence submitted by Bob Smith 2 due to inability to verify the login page, Chile number of companies and Han Lin also not recognized, the court does not confirm its authenticity. The authenticity of the evidence 1 submitted by Wang Fuqiang and the evidence submitted by Zhishu and Han Lin is confirmed by this court. As for the facts disputed by both parties in the second instance, this court affirmed the following: Confirm the facts found in the first instance.This court believes that on December 3, 2013, the People’s Bank of China, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission jointly issued the “Notice on Preventing Bitcoin Risks.” , And the “Announcement of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, China Securities Regulatory Commission and China Insurance Regulatory Commission on Preventing Token Issuance Financing Risks” of the People’s Bank of China’s Central Cyberspace Administration, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology on September 4, 2017, both clearly pointed out: Token issuance financing refers to the financing entity Raising so-called “virtual currencies” such as Bitcoin and Ethereum through the illegal sale and circulation of tokens is essentially an unauthorized and illegal public financing. “Virtual currency” is not issued by the monetary authority, has no monetary properties such as indemnity and compulsion, does not have the same legal status as currency, and cannot and should not be used as currency in the market. Investors must bear their own investment risks. According to the above two announcements, the debts generated by Bitcoin are all illegal debts and are not protected by law. Therefore, regardless of whether the Bitcoin advocated by Wang Fuqiang is stored in the Bitcoin platform account, the risks arising from this behavior shall be borne by oneself. Wang Fuqiang’s appeal request lacks legal basis, and this court does not support it. The verdict of the first instance was correct and should be upheld in accordance with the law. In accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 170 of the “Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China”, the judgment is as follows:The appeal was rejected and the original verdict was upheld.The case acceptance fee of the second instance is 100 yuan, which shall be borne by the appellant Wang Fuqiang.This decision is final.Presiding Judge Sun XiaoJudge Zhang WeiJudge Gao JingNovember 6, 2018Clerk Wang Wen

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *