Model case published by the court
XIN private-key loss dispute: Wei and others v. Zhang and others
AI summary
This entry corresponds to Model Case No. 10 published by the Guangzhou Internet Court, holding that cryptocurrency investment and trading activities are not protected by law. It is not about game items, general online virtual-property disputes, or the rules for managing the case database.
What is collected is the complete model-case text publicly released by the court, including the adjudication gist, the basic facts and the typical significance. The source does not provide the full judgment, the case number or the original judgment date, and this page does not fabricate them.
Parties involved: Co-investors in XIN token nodes and the defendant controller of the private key
Procedural status: All claims were dismissed; neither party appealed and the judgment is final. The case number and original judgment date are not disclosed in the source.
- Distinguish the property character of the token from the legal assessment of the specific investment transaction
- Verify the co-investment arrangement, node rights and private-key control evidence
- The outcome should not be over-extended to mean every crypto-related property claim is unprotected
- Does the dispute concern investment returns, investment losses, or a separate tort?
- Who actually held the private key, and what evidence links the loss to the alleged conduct?
- Is the cited case identical in claim basis and transaction structure to the present one?
Contents
Cryptocurrency investment and trading activities are not protected by law
10
— Wei and others v. Zhang and others, a dispute over infringement of virtual property
01
Key point of the ruling
Cryptocurrencies do not have the lawful status of legal tender. Investment and trading activities in which investors obtain cryptocurrencies through offshore fundraising and invest them to earn returns endanger the public’s property, disrupt the social and economic order, harm the public interest and violate public order and good morals. Such activities are not protected by law, and any losses arising from them must be borne by the investors themselves.
02
Basic facts
Wei, Wu, Jiang and Wen alleged that the plaintiffs and the defendants jointly invested in XIN coins (a virtual currency) to establish and operate a joint node to earn returns, but that the defendants deleted the private key in their custody, causing the permanent loss of the virtual currency in which both sides had invested. As the parties could not agree on compensation, the plaintiffs brought proceedings against the defendants seeking compensation for their losses.
The court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims. Neither side appealed after the judgment was pronounced, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
03
Significance of the case
This is a typical case concerning virtual currency. The court held that the virtual “currency” investment and trading activities between the parties were invalid because they did not comply with the relevant provisions, and that the resulting losses must be borne by the parties themselves. The case makes clear the judicial position that unlawful investment and financing activities are not protected by law, and that investment and financing activities that undermine the status of legal tender are not protected by law. It safeguards the stability of the financial order, economic and property security, and the public interest in accordance with law.
Mankun reference translation; not an official translation. The Chinese original prevails. This is the complete text of the court’s published typical case, not the full judgment.