Hangzhou's first bitcoin property infringement case

Hangzhou's first bitcoin property infringement case

In November 2013, he purchased a recharge code to exchange bitcoin in a store in Taobao. Later, such transactions in Bitcoin were stopped by the People's Bank of China. Now the buyer of the year confessed to the seller, saying that according to the current market value, the bitcoin I bought that year was worth more than 70,000 yuan, then you still me.

Today (May 22), the Hangzhou Internet Court heard the first “bitcoin” network property infringement dispute case.

Because bitcoin is traded in a special way, the evidence and legal relationships involved in this case are complicated.

The plaintiff was Wu, a native of Hangzhou. There were two defendants. One was a technology company in Shanghai. In the same year, it opened an online store that provided bitcoin exchange on Taobao. The defendant was Taobao.

Bitcoin is a kind of virtual currency. The trading in the year is a bit like buying stocks. When Wu pays real money, he can get the corresponding bitcoin share.

In that year, he bought 2.675 bitcoins twice and spent more than 20,000 yuan. The first two transactions were bought through the Taobao shop just like we bought ordinary goods. The second time, according to him, it was direct. Pay the money to the owner Alipay.

In today's lawsuit, Wu’s indictment amounted to 76,314 yuan, which is said to be based on the current market price of Bitcoin.

The plaintiff Wu said that he bought bitcoin at the end of 2013, but in 2014 the bitcoin exchange transaction website was closed and its Taobao store was closed. When the above website was closed, the defendant Shanghai Technology Company did not give any warning to the plaintiff. This "inaction" caused the plaintiff to purchase the bitcoin and could not recover it, which brought huge economic losses to the plaintiff.

Then why should you advertise Taobao?

The plaintiff believed that Internet virtual currency such as Bitcoin and Litecoin and related commodities were forbidden by Taobao. The defendant Taobao did not fulfill the audit obligation, which caused the plaintiff to buy the prohibited trading products on the online shopping platform operated by the plaintiff and suffered losses.

Therefore, his petition is that a technology company in Shanghai and Taobao.com bear joint and several liability for his loss of more than 70,000 yuan.

The main defense of a defendant's Shanghai technology company was that the plaintiff bought the recharge code on November 30, 2013, and their website posted a website outage announcement on May 2, 2014 and closed on May 10 of the same year.

The website shutdown is based on a joint document issued by the People's Bank of China and other departments and agencies, which stipulates the prohibition of bitcoin transactions. Therefore, they do not constitute infringement on the plaintiff, and Bitcoin is illegal property. It is not protected by law in China. The transaction is suspected of disturbing the social and economic order and harming the public interest. Therefore, the court is required to dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit.

Taobao’s argument is that Taobao is only a service provider that provides information publishing platform, not a producer or seller of the goods involved in the complaint, and does not participate in the production, editing or recommendation of the goods involved in the case. The user publishes it on its own. Taobao cannot control the quality and security of the items involved in the transaction, the true accuracy of the information, and the ability of the parties to fulfill their obligations under the transaction agreement. The legal consequences of the user's release of information or transactions are entirely vested by the user. According to the plaintiff's application, Taobao Company has disclosed the real name, address and effective contact information of the seller to the plaintiff in a timely manner, and fulfilled the corresponding obligations, and should not be liable for compensation; the plaintiff did not pass the platform to create a rights protection channel before the case To apply for a refund of the return, Taobao has fulfilled its platform obligations as an online trading platform and should not be jointly and severally liable. In summary, the court also requested the court to dismiss all plaintiffs’ claims.

Because it is the first case, it brings a lot of new problems.

The court also summarized the focus of the dispute –

First, China has denied the currency status of Bitcoin in China, but bitcoin is still valuable in the world. In this case, is Bitcoin valuable, scarce, and disposable, whether it is a virtual property and subject to it? Legal protection.

Second, when Wu bought Bitcoin for the second time, he directly went to the online store owner Alipay. Now, it is a technology company in Shanghai that whether the two entities have the same identity.

Third, if the defendant’s Shanghai technology company constitutes infringement, the plaintiff’s claim for infringement liability at the transaction price of 2.675 bitcoin is reasonable;

Fourth. Whether the defendant Taobao Company should conduct an active review of the links of the goods involved, whether it should bear the joint tort liability;

Fifth, after five years, whether the plaintiff’s prosecution has exceeded the statute of limitations.

The court will choose to pronounce the case on the case.

The young female judge told the 24-hour reporter after the court that Internet legal disputes often encounter new problems, and such a state of continuous learning is really good. (Qianjiang Evening News)