姐妹，或许你听说过“狗狗币”吗？
Sister, perhaps you've heard of "dog coin"?
只赚不赔、一夜暴富的那种！
The one who earns nothing and gets rich all night!
我带你飞哦！
I'll fly you!
苟富贵，勿相忘！
Rich, don't forget!
基本案情
Basic case
小陈与小卢在一次销售活动中相识并成为朋友。为增加销售利润，小卢表示可以帮小陈购买低折扣的某直销产品，于是小陈多次支付给小卢购买款合计5万余元。
In order to increase sales profits, Leung has offered to buy a direct product with a low discount, and has paid him more than $50,000 to buy it on a number of occasions.
后来，经朋友介绍，小卢了解到互联网投资项目狗狗币涨势喜人，却苦于手头没钱，便多次与小陈商量，希望她将某直销产品的购买款用于投资狗狗币，并承诺赚了平分、亏了承担一半。
Later, after being told by friends, Lou learned that the Internet investment project was so exciting that she had no money at her disposal, and repeatedly consulted with Chen, hoping that she would use the purchase of a direct sale to invest in the dog price and promised to earn half of the share and lose half.
然而，暴富梦还没实现，这对小姐妹就闹上了法庭。
However, the wild dreams of the rich had not materialized and the young sisters had been brought to court.
小陈表示：
Chen said:
我当时确实对狗狗币投资项目很心动，但考虑到有风险，且给小卢的下单购买款中还有其他人的钱，最终就没有答应小卢进行投资，双方也没有签订投资协议。我认为小卢没有法律和合同依据占有其资金，所以起诉要求小卢应当全部返还不当得利。
I was really excited about the dog money investment project, but considering the risks involved, and given that there were other people in the purchase bill for Lou, the parties did not promise to invest, and the parties did not sign an investment agreement. I think that Lou had no legal or contractual basis for taking possession of his funds, so the prosecution asked him to return all of his money.
小卢则说：
And Lou said:
我带着朋友和小陈在咖啡店见面商谈投资，小陈当场就同意将下单购买款作为共同投资，也没来得及签订书面协议，结果没过几天小陈又说不投资了，但4万元已经全部亏损，注册和交易网站也无法登陆。
I took my friend and Chen to the coffee shop to talk about the investment, and Chen agreed on the purchase of the purchase order as a joint investment and did not have a written agreement in time to sign it, but after a few days, Chen said he would not invest, but $40,000 was lost and the registration and trading sites could not be accessed.
那么，这4万元到底是投资款还是产品购买款？
So, is this $40,000 investment or product purchase?
承办法官从二人的聊天记录中抽丝抽茧，还原了真相。原来，经二人多次线上线下商量，小陈见狗狗币涨势很好，同意将4万元用于共同投资，由小卢代为购买狗狗币。但之后该投资公司就倒闭了，交易网站关闭，运营人不知所踪。无奈之下，小卢先行向小陈返还了5000元。现小陈起诉，要求小卢归还不当得利35000元。
The judge in charge drew a cocoon from the two's chat record and returned it to the truth. So, after a number of online discussions between the two people, Chen Chen agreed to spend 40,000 dollars on co-investment, with Lude buying them. But then the investment company closed down, the trading website closed, and the operator disappeared.
裁判结果
Outcome of the decision
法院经审理认为，非法债务不受法律保护。狗狗币是一种类似于比特币的网络虚拟货币，不具有法偿性和强制性等货币属性，并非真正意义上的货币，不能且不应作为货币在市场上流通使用。公民投资和交易狗狗币需自行承担投资风险。由此，因狗狗币产生的债务，均系非法债务，不受法律保护。
The court considered that illegal debt is not protected by law. Dog money is a virtual currency of a network similar to bitcoin, is not legal and compulsory, is not a currency in the true sense, and cannot and should not be used as a currency in the market.
小卢将小陈的4万元实际用于投资了狗狗币，双方建立了关于投资狗狗币的合作理财关系。因狗狗币系不合法物，小陈、小卢合作投资狗狗币的行为不应受法律保护，该行为造成的后果应由双方自行承担，小陈要求小卢返还下单款35000元的诉讼请求，无事实和法律依据，遂判决驳回诉讼请求。
Lu actually invests Xiao Chen’s £40,000 in dog money, and has established a cooperative relationship between the two sides regarding the investment of Xiao Lu. Since the Xiao Lu cooperative investment of Xiao Lu’s Xiao Lu is illegal, the law does not apply, and the consequences of this action are borne by the parties themselves.
法官说法
The judge's statement.
以区块链技术为技术支撑的狗狗币、比特币等虚拟货币具有一定经济价值，许多人投资者对虚拟货币投资趋之若鹜。根据中国人民银行等国家部委下发的《关于防范比特币风险的通知》《关于进一步防范和处置虚拟货币交易炒作风险的通知》等文件规定，涉虚拟货币的交易炒作活动扰乱金融秩序，滋生赌博、非法集资等违法犯罪活动，相关投资交易行为不应受法律保护，由此引发的损失由投资者自行承担。
Virtual currency, which is technologically supported by block-chain technology, has a certain economic value, and many investors tend to invest in virtual currency. According to documents such as the Notice on Risk Protection against Bitcoin, issued by state ministries such as the People’s Bank of China, the Circular on the Further Prevention and Disposal of Risks from Virtual Currency Transactions stipulates that transactions involving virtual money disrupt the financial order, breed criminal activities such as gambling, illegal fund-raising, etc., and that the associated investment transactions should not be protected by the law.
本案中，人民法院对该类投资行为给予否定性评价，向社会公众发出明确警示，不要选择这类风险极高的“投机游戏”，避免虚拟货币等非法金融产品扰乱正常金融秩序，有利于维护金融安全和稳定。
In the present case, the People's Court gave a negative assessment of this type of investment, sending a clear warning to the public not to choose such highly risky “speculatory games” and to avoid illegal financial products such as virtual currency disrupting the normal financial order and contributing to the maintenance of financial security and stability.
（图片来源于网络）
(pictures from online)
原标题：《币圈神奇故事再加一！》
Original title: "Animation of the Currency Circle One more! "
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论