Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chinese Court Rules Bitcoin Should Be Protected As Property (coindesk.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the economic-disputes dept.

A Chinese court has ruled that despite the country's central bank's ban on cryptocurrency trading, bitcoin should be legally protected as a property with economic values. CoinDesk reports: The Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration published a case analysis on Thursday via WeChat, detailing its ruling on a recent economic dispute that involved a business contract relating to possession and transfer of crypto assets. According to the case analysis, the unnamed plaintiff signed a contract agreement with the defendant, which allowed the latter to trade and manage a pool of cryptocurrencies on the plaintiff's behalf. However, the plaintiff said the defendant failed and refused to return the cryptocurrencies after an agreed deadline. As a result, they brought the case to the arbitrator, seeking the return of the assets with interest. The court concluded that, whether bitcoin is a legal tender or not, does not have an impact on the fact that bitcoin ownership should be protected legally based on China's contract law, adding: "Bitcoin has the nature of a property, which can be owned and controlled by parties, and is able to provide economic values and benefits."

51 comments

  1. Hahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Chinese court thinks they will set national law without consulting Party HQ in Peking? Look for this judge to disappear tomorrow.

    1. Re:Hahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spotted the guy who has never ventured outside of his home town.

    2. Re:Hahahaha! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      A Chinese court thinks they will set national law without consulting Party HQ in Peking?

      You misunderstand how things work in China.

      America is a federation, where in theory, most power is at the state level, but in practice power is often centralized in Washington.

      China is the opposite. In theory, power is centralized, but in practice it is widely disbursed.

      China does not have an independent judiciary, but courts are often influenced much more by local politicians, than by far of Beijing. The local politicians in Shenzhen, a cosmopolitan city a stone's throw from the HK border, are going to be far more liberal in their rulings than the national court in Beijing.

    3. Re:Hahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure liberal is the word here as in America for example, it's the mainline Democrats that seem to come out strongest against cryptocurrencies (because they can't control it.)

  2. mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These things happen when religious systems like communism butt up against reality.

    1. Re:mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These things happen when religious systems like communism butt up against reality.

      Communism says that the government owns everything. A free society dictates that what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours, people are not free if others can just take the fruits of your labors no matter how trivial the specific item might seem. A free society also dictates that people must hold up their end of the deal, as in a contract is a contract and you can't expect to step out of it without consequences. There's several forms to enforce a contract, and not all of them require a government. Societal shunning of untrustworthy people is one means to enforce a contract. If you back out on your word then you might have trouble making contracts in the future.

      I'm pleased to hear that China is taking contract law seriously, this means that people can conduct business and not have to expend resources in enforcing contracts through non-government means. I'm pleased to hear that China takes property rights seriously. The court could have simply denied to hear the case. The court could have taken the property for the government. The court could have done all kinds of things on what many might see as a trivial matter.

      If the government of China is seeing personal property as valuable, valuable enough to expend resources in a court to defend them, then this is a shift away from Communism. Reality is butting up against Communism, and Communism is losing. Reality is that if you want prosperity then you need to grant people freedom.

      The religion of communism just died a little today.

    2. Re:mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Communism says that the government owns everything."
      Communism "says" nothing of the sort. You have expressed a Feudal concept: "L'Etat c'est moi!" The origins of Communism were in the Medieval French, semi-independent, City-State "Communes", often in open rebellion against the French Crown. The Crown in turn Nationalized certain Commune Industries, like Paper-Making in Paris and Glass-Making in Picardy. An interesting outcome of this is when in 1798, when Glass and Paper Making were seized from the Crown, new Standards rapidly emerged, like A and B sizings of Paper, and fixed dimensions for Glass Windowpanes, all based on the proportion of 5:7 roughly, or 1:sqrt2 precisely. This was the "Silver Ratio" of Proportions, thought up by Lichtenberg, a German, and it became part of French Law.
      d'Hupay characterized Communism as a process where the Communists "...share all economic and material products between inhabitants of the commune, so that all may benefit from everybody's work." It is, in essence, Anti-Government. Anarcho-Communism. d'Hupay is generally credited as the first modern Communist, decades before Marx. He lived and Philosophized in the ancient Commune of Meyreuil.
      You right-wing whackos really should read some history from time to time, say just on Paper and Glass; you're currently failing anything as complicated as making Pipe Bombs miserably.

    3. Re:mean by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Communism says that the government owns everything.

      No it doesn't. Communism says the government withers away. The people collectively own capital - the means of production. Non-capital goods are individually owned. So your toothbrush is yours, and yours alone.

      At least that is the theory. In practice, it works like this.

    4. Re:mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      d'Hupay characterized Communism as a process where the Communists "...share all economic and material products between inhabitants of the commune, so that all may benefit from everybody's work." It is, in essence, Anti-Government. Anarcho-Communism.

      I've heard communism defined as "to all according to their needs, from all according to their ability". So, who determines "need"? Well, at least in China that is the government. Communism is not at it's core anti-government because there's been a government in China based on it for decades. Other examples exist all over the world. Now, who determines "ability"? This is the government again. People deemed not living up to their ability are imprisoned. This also applies to those that have been deemed to take more than their need, as such is considered theft from the government. So, it's not "to all according to their needs, from all according to their ability" it's really just "the government gives and the government takes".

      I have read some history and all communist systems end in corruption, abuse, theft, poverty, and general misery. China has been figuring this out, slowly. They can't end communism overnight because there are too many people dependent on the government to live. They need to "teach" people how to live on their own, that the government won't always give. They also need to demonstrate that the government is no longer going to take all they have. There is a lack of trust on both sides and they have to build trust into the system. People have to trust the government to not take all their stuff, and the government has to trust the people not to take what's not their's. This trust is built with court cases like this.

    5. Re:mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing Communism, an Economic concept, with Totalitarianism, a Political concept. There has been a recent corrupt Government in China that has experimented with aspects of Communism, but there have always been corrupt Governments in China, experimenting with all sorts of things, like Tibet, which was last clearly independent of China some 700 years ago. Except for a few recent decades, China was 100% Capitalist; it has never been 100% Communist. Tibet of course has historically been a Feudal Religious State.
      Since I like to give sources for quotes, your paraphrase of something that you "heard", "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was a translation of Marx, from his 1875 "Critique of the Gotha Program", but he was paraphrasing and condensing Restif de la Bretone, who himself was commenting on d'Hupay: "All must be common among equals. Each must work for the common good; all must take an equal part in work."

      "I have read some history and all communist systems end in corruption, abuse, theft, poverty, and general misery."
      Your reading of History is suspect, and of course without attribution. For instance, there were Christian Communist systems like the Shakers in the US, who celibated themselves out of existence; they didn't have children. Hell, they didn't have sex. They did make great furniture...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

      We don't misunderstand you; you are trivially easy to understand. You hate Commies. You hate Gummint. You hate China. You just hate.
      You are Classic Mouth-Breathing Libertarian; all opinion, little reason, no facts.
      And you are venting all this on Communication Systems designed, built, and supported by Governments in cooperation; quite a few of them in fact, of many different Political and Economic persuasions.
      Except Libertarian.

      Funny Captcha: royalist

    6. Re:mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all communist systems end in corruption, abuse, theft, poverty, and general misery

      "end in"? Communism STARTS with this in mind. It's always a group of power-mad greedmongers who just want to steal from others under the guise of "sharing" the wealth.

    7. Re:mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll admit religion makes better IED's.

    8. Re:mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism is a religious concept, like creationism. Capitalism is a law of nature, like evolution.

    9. Re:mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how Communism works. When they talked about property being public they meant means capital production. One could still have private property, but the means of production would no longer be in the hands of private capitalists.

    10. Re:mean by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The people collectively own capital

      If "the People" collectively own everything, then noone owns anything.

      On the other hand, I've got stock in a couple dozen companies (not large amounts, mind you, but some), as do most of us (what? you thought your 401K and/or IRA just stuck the money into someone's mattress?). So, yeah, I own capital. A small piece of it, but some....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Communism is a religious concept, like creationism."
      Christian Communism certainly is, but that is one of many kinds of Communism. Another kind characterizes Religion as the Opiate of the Gullible. Like you. (Actually, the full translated quote from Marx goes "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.")

      "Capitalism is a law of nature, like evolution."
      What are these Laws of Nature, of which you speak? Do you mean "Natural Law", as defined thus:
      "Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason." (Wikipedia)
      Hey, you're right back to Religion again! Other than the Catholic Church, which makes an exception just for itself, Evolution is pretty much distrusted by any who believe in traditional "Natural Law". And what Cracker Jack box did you get "Capitalism is a law of nature..."? Can you cite the Statutes, or any Procedural Law? How about a Supreme Court decision citing a "God or a transcendent source"?
      Can you cite ANYTHING at all?
      Make up your mind, or...
      To hell with it; you are terminally ignorant.

      (The source of the rubbish quoted by the Moron above is in fact Slashdot:
      https://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/11/02/0127217/us-law-cant-keep-up-with-technology----and-why-thats-a-good-thing
      The irrelevant quote appears in relation to Bitcoin yet again, so we know just what side his buns are buttered on, and what he likes to squeeze in them...)

    12. Re:mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer the "Star Trek" metaphor, where Capitalism has withered away, and means of Production are held by the "Federation" in Trust. Reward is conferred by personal improvement, but if you want Status instead, you join Star Fleet.
      It's funny that the most coherent and detailed exegesis of how Communism could work was originally cancelled due to poor Ratings, and yet it still comes back, decade after decade. As for Capitalism and Free Markets evolving... the Ferengi were a nice touch...

    13. Re:mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ju..ju..just shutup shutup -- PeeWee Herman

  3. Thus, coin became defacto currency, gaijinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dame desu yo

    1. Re: Thus, coin became defacto currency, gaijinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. Japanese donâ(TM)t write transliterated in roman characters.

      2. This is about China, which officially speaks Mandarin, not Japanese. I would however expect to hear some Cantonese so close to Hong Kong.

  4. Re:Bitcoiners should be protected on the short bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shaddap retard.

  5. Tax by dohzer · · Score: 1

    And taxed as such?

    1. Re:Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't ask such basic questions of the Chinese.

    2. Re:Tax by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Good Communists with the needed standing under the Social Credit System are allowed to enjoy the different cryptocurrency services.
      Just like they can "own" property, get a "passport", live in a city, travel domestically.
      When they want real money out of a cyber currency they can attempt to do that government approved transaction inside China. No trying to move "money" out of the country.
      No using another nation to hide cash wealth created from a cryptocurrency.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Tax by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      And taxed as such?

      For taxing, you would need to determine the value, or possibly profits. And I have no idea how Chinese tax laws work. But in most countries I would expect profits to be taxable.

      I suspect there is nothing new here actually. Just that some scammer was given someone else's bitcoins for trading, didn't return them, and probably made a lame excuse, which the court then didn't refute.

    4. Re:Tax by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      And taxed as such?

      It's either currency, in which many, many countries would have issues with it, as that is something governments reserve to themselves, or it skirts those laws as some kind of traded item, in which case it would normally be taxed when converting to cash aka selling it like any other sale, or when it is used to buy something, in which case it is trading something for something, which is often taxed as a sale of cash value (lest people escape sales taxes by implementing a trading economy.)

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. Re: Bitcoiners should be protected on the short bu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, how about this: anyone who thinks bitcoin or any other crypto coin based on nothing but hashes of hashes of transaction logs stored and computed on every single computer retarded enough to be part of this idiocy is fucking retarded.

  7. Ergo and the indisputable logic by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    An asset with a value of >0 is to be treated as property... no fracking wonder the Chinese have come to dominate the World's economic theater.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  8. "Chinese court?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my God! That is so precious!

  9. Bitcoin is little more than a laundering service.. by dicobalt · · Score: 1, Informative

    and get rich quick scheme.

  10. China has been running away from Communism 1978 by raymorris · · Score: 2

    China started privatizing businesses in 1978, starting with small businesses This continued through the 1980s and large concerns were privatized 1990s in order to try to be able to compete the United States economically (and not starve).

    By one measure, China is now only "65% Communist", while the US has increased to 48%. (Putting both firmly in the socialist range).

    1. Re:China has been running away from Communism 1978 by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for the Chinese, Chairman-for-life Xi Jinping has reversed privatization, is increasing funding for SOEs, and is increasing regulation on private companies that try to compete with them. More political repression, more economic insanity.

    2. Re:China has been running away from Communism 1978 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Xi just stated recently that he will provide unwavering support to both SOEs AND private businesses. Basically private businesses bonds will have more support from the state institutions/banks, so they won't have to rely on shadow banking for funds. Overall that's a very good thing.

      Can you give some examples of increasing regulations on private businesses that compete with SOEs?

  11. Re:Bitcoin is little more than a laundering servic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://news.bitcoin.com/

    Nope, sorry, cryptocurrency is slowly being adopted worldwide.
    These things take time. Many competitors in the field.
    You can research and choose a few to invest in.
    Or sit on your duff and just use them to buy your stupid
    beer and footbal at the local pub when they eventually reach ubiquity.

    Also research privacy coins.
    And libertarian, voluntaryism, crypto-anarchy, cypherpunk, etc.
    So you know where cryptocurrency came from,
    why it's extremely important, and how its promise
    will improve your freedom and life in the future, for your
    kids, and the world.

  12. Re:Bitcoin is little more than a laundering servic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah ...and the Internet is just a fad.

  13. Re: Bitcoiners should be protected on the short bu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound retarded

  14. RAY MORRIS PUSHED DEBUNKED NAZI PROPAGANDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FAGGOT RAY MORRIS IS A NAZI PUSHING PROPAGANDA INTENTIONALLY AFTER DEBUNKED - https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660 What a retarded babyfucker.

  15. And afterwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China confiscated all of the crypto in accordance with the ban

  16. Re: Bitcoiners should be protected on the short bu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mentally handicapped -

  17. So Like Tiananmen Square Tank Man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ground under tank treads and paved over and forgotten like the West's commitment to democracy?

    1. Re:So Like Tiananmen Square Tank Man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that it's famous because he didn't get run over right?

      You millennials are retarded sometimes.

    2. Re: So Like Tiananmen Square Tank Man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck tank man. Props to the PLA soldier in the tank who had the humanity to not run over an unarmed civilian. An IDF goin in a merkava would have had no second thoughts about it.

  18. Herrow Mr. Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your penis is so small. Is this why you destroy the world with pollution and kill rhinos trying to MAGICALLY grow your tiny cock like some mongoloid with no understanding of science?

    Your country should be nuked from orbit. Only way to be sure.

  19. How much does Poohbear pay you Bill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China has been ruled by the sane families since the Communism revolution. Their elders all live in the same house. We're not all ignorant round eyes you chink cocksucker.

    Read the CIA World Factbook sometime princess.

    1. Re: How much does Poohbear pay you Bill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the usa in particular and the western world in general, you round-eyed cocksucker.

  20. The thing about communism is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...ALWAYS devolves into who becomes the order giver and who becomes the ditch digger. No one ever wants to be the ditch digger.

    1. Re:The thing about communism is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and the difference with Capitalism is exactly what? Somebody has to dig ditches, and given the miserable pay for such work with current US Free Market Capitalism, Ditch Diggers tend to be smuggled cheaply in from elsewheres down South, and then quite publicly deported when convenient.
      Unless of course we are talking about _Union_ Ditch Diggers, but you lot loathe Unions almost as much as you loathe Communists...
      Which brings up the interesting question... just what kind of Ditch Digger are you?
      My guess is that you aren't any kind of Ditch Digger at all; you would much prefer being an Order Giver, you damn Commie Stooge!

  21. Bad at Communism. by sabbede · · Score: 1

    China sucks at Communism now. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Communism is pretty bad on its own, so being bad at it doesn't suck like being bad at processing lactose does.