原标题：
比特币中国2017年9月14日晚宣布，于9月30日停止所有交易业务。(资料图片)
The evening of 14 September 2017 in Bitcoin China announced that all transactions would cease on 30 September. (Information picture)
近日，由深圳国际仲裁院(深圳仲裁委员会)裁决的一起案件，因为承认了国内比特币具有财产属性，受法律保护，引起了业内广泛关注，并被认为在一定程度上填补了现有司法判例的空白，具有相当重要的意义。
In a recent case, decided by the Shenzhen International Arbitration Court (the Shenzhen Arbitration Commission), it was considered of considerable importance that the recognition of the property attributes of the domestic bitcoin, which was protected by law, raised widespread interest within the industry and was considered to have filled some of the gaps in existing jurisprudence.
该裁决认为，虽然监管部门禁止ICO活动和虚拟货币交易，提醒投资者应该有效防范风险，但从未断定个人比特币交易属于违法行为。根据国内法律法规，比特币不具有货币职能，但是这并不妨碍其属于数字资产，可作为交付对象。
The decision held that, while the regulatory authority prohibited ICO activities and virtual currency transactions, reminding investors that they should be effective in protecting against risk, it had never been established that individual bitcoin transactions were illegal. Bitcoin did not have a monetary function under domestic laws and regulations, but that did not prevent it from being a digital asset that could be the object of delivery.
“这一案件首次对比特币法律属性以及比特币交易合同的有效性作出认定，具有标杆意义。”广西民族大学华南区块链大数据法治战略研究院院长、二级教授齐爱民日前在接受《法制日报》记者采访时说。
& & ldquo; this case was marked by the first determination of the legal attributes of the bitcoin and the validity of the Bitcoin trading contract. & & & rdquo; President of the Graduate Institute for the Rule of Law Strategy of the South China Block Chain of Guangxi National University, and second-level Professor Qi Yimin, in an interview with a journalist in the Rule of Law Daily.
齐爱民指出，自中本聪于2008年11月1日发表《比特币:一种点对点的电子现金系统》以来，距今刚好十年。在这十年中，比特币价格迎来了前所未有的增长，同时带动了以太坊等其他数字货币的产生，成为资本涌入的热土。与此同时，对于比特币的监管以及由此引发的法定数字货币发行问题，全球各国也并未形成一致看法。
Qi-Weimin pointed out that 10 years have passed since China’s publication of Bitcoin: A Point-to-Point Electronic Cash System on November 1, 2008. During this decade, Bitcoin prices have risen at an unprecedented rate, driving the generation of other digital currencies, such as the Taiku, to become hot ground for capital inflows.
中国于2017年出台的《关于防范代币发行融资风险的公告》(以下简称《公告》)否定了比特币的货币属性，并全面禁止了ICO活动。在法律层面，民法总则第127条关于“数据和网络虚拟财产”的规定尚无进一步界定。“因此，比特币法律属性和交易合同的有效性有待明确。”齐爱民说。
At the legal level, article 127 of the General Civil Code provides for “ data and network virtual property & rdquo; & & ldquo; & & ldquo; & ldquo; therefore, the legal attributes of the bitcoin and the validity of the transaction contract need to be clarified.
合同是否违法
这是一起由股权转让引发的争议。与一般股权转让案件所不同的是，它被划入了新类型案件，因为争议标的涉及BTC(比特币)、BCH(比特币现金)和BCD(比特币钻石)此类特殊类型的物。
This is a dispute arising out of a transfer of equity. Unlike in a general transfer of equity case, it is classified as a new type of case because the subject matter of the dispute relates to special types of goods such as BTC (bitcoin), BCH (bitcoin cash) and BCD (bitcoin diamonds).
某合伙企业A将自己名下持有的X公司的5%股份转给了某人C，股权转让款为55万元。双方签订《股权转让协议》，约定其中25万元由C支付给A。
A partnership A transfers 5% of the shares of company X held in its own name to someone C, with an equity transfer of $550,000.
一同参与签订协议的还有某人B，其所扮演的角色是:B委托C对比特币等资产进行理财，基于该部分资产产生的部分收益，在C将合同约定的BTC、BCH和BCD如期如数归还B后，B同意代替C向A支付剩余股权转让款30万元。
Also involved in the conclusion of the agreement was a person, B., whose role was to commission assets such as C. Bitcoin, which, based on a portion of the proceeds derived from that portion of the asset, agreed to pay C in lieu of its remaining equity transfer of $300,000 after C had returned the contracted BTC, BCH and BCD to B.
然而，这份协议在履行中很快就出现了问题。C并未依约返还BTC、BCH和BCD，也没有依约支付股权转让款。
However, the agreement quickly presented problems in its implementation.C did not return BTC, BCH and BCD as contracted, nor did it pay the transfer of shares as contracted.
由此，A和B向深圳仲裁委员会提起仲裁，请求变更A持有X公司的5%股份到C名下，C同时向第一申请人支付股权款人民币25万元；C向B赔偿20.13个BTC、50个BCH、12.66个BCD资产损失，共计493，158.40美元和利息(从申请仲裁之日起按照同期中国银行美元利率计算，直至返还之日止)；C支付B违约金10万元。
As a result, A and B initiated arbitration with the Shenzhen Arbitration Board, requesting a change of 5 per cent of the shares of A Holding Company X to C, and C also paid the first claimant a sum of RMB 250,000; C compensated B for the loss of 20.13 BTC, 50 BCH, 12.66 BCD assets in the total amount of USD 493,158.40 and interest (from the date of the application for arbitration at the United States dollar interest rate of the Chinese bank for the same period until the date of return); and C paid B's liquidated sum of RMB 100,000.
对于自己未按照合同约定归还比特币等数字资产和支付股权款，构成违约的事实，C并不否认。但是C对于合同本身的有效性提出了质疑，理由是C之前与A和B签订的《股权转让协议》是违法的，因此也是无效的。
C does not deny the fact that its failure to return digital assets such as Bitcoin and the payment of equity shares, as agreed in the contract, constitutes a breach of contract. C, however, questions the validity of the contract itself, on the ground that the prior Agreement on Transfer of Equity with A and B C was unlawful and therefore null and void.
C拿出了令人无法辩驳的官方文件，这就是2017年中国人民银行等7部门发布的《公告》。其中规定:代币发行(ICO)融资是指融资主体通过代币的违规发售、流通，向投资者筹集比特币、以太币等所谓“虚拟货币”，本质上是一种未经批准非法公开融资的行为，涉嫌非法发售代币票券、非法发行证券以及非法集资、金融诈骗、传销等违法犯罪活动。
C produced an incontrovertible official document, which is the Proclamation issued in 2017 by the People’s Bank of China and seven other sectors. It states that the financing of money issues (ICOs) refers to the illegal sale and circulation of funds by the fund-holders through the illegal sale and circulation of money in currencies, the collection of so-called & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & money from investors; a virtual currency & & & & & & & & & & & & ; it is essentially an unauthorized act of illegal public financing, suspected of illegal distribution of coupons, illegal distribution of securities, illegal collection of funds, financial fraud, distribution of illegal criminal activities, etc.
该文件力图证明一个事实:无论数字货币是否为合法，数字货币的流通和交付为非法行为。
The document sought to prove the fact that the circulation and delivery of digital money were illegal regardless of whether or not it was legal.
由此，这一案件所涉合同中的“转让价款的支付及安排”，也就违反了法律强制性规定而无效。同时，因为该条款系合同的核心条款，因此合同构成整体无效。
As a result, the contract in question & ldquao; the payment and arrangement of the transfer price & & rdquao; and also the breach of a mandatory provision of the law, which, at the same time, is the core clause of the contract, renders the contract null and void as a whole.
C还认为，自己虽然没有按照约定向B交付比特币等数字资产，并非自己的单方过错，因为数字货币本身就是无法交易和流通的；而且，数字货币所有权为X公司所有，并不属于C。对于这两点，无论是A还是B，在签订上述股权转让合同的时候都是明知的。所以，未交付比特币的责任根本不在自己身上，不应该就此承担违约责任。
C was also of the view that it was not its own unilateral fault that it did not deliver digital assets such as bitcoin to B as agreed, since the digital currency itself could not be traded and circulated; and that digital money ownership was owned by company X and did not belong to C. For both, either A or B was known at the time of the conclusion of the above-mentioned assignment of shares contract. Thus, the liability for failure to deliver bitcoin should not be on its own at all and should not be held liable for breach of contract.
比特币可否交付
Can Bitcoin be delivered at ?
这一看似言之凿凿的说法，却没有得到仲裁庭的支持。
This argument, which appears to be sarcastic, was not supported by the arbitral tribunal.
在仲裁庭看来，根据《公告》，比特币不是由货币当局发行，不具有法偿性与强制性等货币属性，不具有与货币等同的法律地位，不能也不应作为货币在市场上流通使用。
In the opinion of the arbitral tribunal, according to the Proclamation, Bitcoin is not issued by the monetary authority, has no monetary attributes such as judiciality and mandatoryity, does not have legal status equivalent to that of currency, and cannot and should not be used as a currency in the market.
但是，并无法律法规明确禁止当事人持有比特币或者私人间进行比特币交易。《公告》的意图主要在于提醒社会公众注意有关投资风险。
However, there are no laws or regulations that expressly prohibit the holding of bitcoin or the trading of bitcoin between private persons.
仲裁庭认为，上述股权转让合同约定的是两个自然人之间的比特币归还义务，不属于《公告》中规定的代币发行(ICO)融资活动(融资主体通过代币的违规发售、流通，向投资者筹集比特币、以太币等所谓“虚拟货币”)，更不涉嫌非法发售代币票券、非法发行证券以及非法集资、金融诈骗、传销等违法犯罪活动。
The tribunal held that the above-mentioned assignment of shares contract provided for an obligation to pay back bitcoin between two natural persons and was not part of the financing activities for the issuance of tokens (ICOs) as provided for in the Proclamation (the financing subject collects from investors by means of irregularities in the sale, circulation and sale of coins, so-called &ldquo & & & & & & rdquo, the virtual currency & & & & & & & & & & ) and is less suspected of illegal sale of coupons, illegal distribution of securities and unlawful collection of funds, financial fraud, distribution, etc.
合同有各方当事人的签署，可见是各方当事人的真实意思表示，且未违反法律法规效力性强制性规定。由此，仲裁庭认定股权转让协议对签约各方具有法律约束力，各方应全面履行合同约定的义务。
The contract was signed by the parties, and thus the parties expressed their true intention and did not violate the mandatory force of the laws and regulations. The arbitral tribunal therefore concluded that an assignment of equity agreement was legally binding on the contracting parties and that the parties were required to fulfil their contractual obligations in full.
“私人间订立的比特币归还契约并未违反法律法规效力性强制性规定，不应认定为无效。中国法律法规并未禁止私人持有及合法流转比特币。”仲裁庭说。
& & ldquo; Privately concluded Bitcoin restitution contracts do not violate the mandatory validity of laws and regulations and should not be considered null and void. Chinese laws and regulations do not prohibit private ownership and legal transfer of bitcoins. ” Arbitral Tribunal says.
仲裁庭同时指出，比特币不是法定货币，并不妨碍其作为财产而受到法律保护。比特币具有财产属性，能够为人力所支配和控制，具有经济价值，能够给当事人带来经济方面的利益。“这是当事人一致的意思表示，并不违背法律规定，仲裁庭对此予以认可。”
At the same time, the Arbitral Tribunal noted that Bitcoin was not a legal currency and did not prevent it from being protected as a property. Bitcoin had property attributes, was capable of domination and control over human beings, was of economic value and could bring economic benefits to the parties. “ this was the unanimous meaning of the parties and was not contrary to the law, which the Arbitral Tribunal accepted. ”
既然比特币并无持有的禁止性规定，那么，在实际流转中有无操作障碍呢?而这一点，也正是C所提出的无法交付比特币的抗辩理由。
Since Bitcoin does not have a prohibition in its possession, is there an operational obstacle in its actual flow? This is the defence that C has advanced that Bitcoin cannot be delivered.
仲裁庭强调，比特币、比特币现金等的交付不存在法律上的障碍。根据《公告》的相关规定，比特币、比特币现金等只是不能作为货币(即法定货币)在市场上流通使用。但并无法律法规禁止其成为私人间交付或流转的客体。
The Arbitral Tribunal emphasized that there were no legal obstacles to the delivery of bitcoin, bitcoin, bitcoin, cash, etc. Under the relevant provisions of the Proclamation, bitcoin, bitcoin, cash, etc., were simply not available in the market as a currency (i.e. as a legal currency).
技术上的障碍也同样不存在。仲裁庭指出，互联网技术将人类现实生活空间延伸至网络空间，存在于网络空间中的比特币、比特币现金等，其交付过程借助互联网技术支持的电子编码程序运作。在比特币、比特币现金等的实际使用中，每一位交易当事人先要在计算机终端上安装一个电子钱包，因此而拥有独一无二的地址，自动生成一对密匙——私匙与公匙。公匙被匿名公开，私匙为特定身份信息。所有者可以通过私匙随时支配、处分其比特币、比特币现金等。也就是说，比特币、比特币现金通过互联网技术是可以交付的。
The tribunal noted that Internet technology extends the real life space of humans to cyberspace, and that the process of delivery of the bitcoin, bitcoin, etc., in cyberspace, is operated through an electronic coding program supported by Internet technology. In actual use of bitcoin, bitcoin, etc., each party to a transaction first installs an electronic wallet on a computer terminal, thus having a unique address, automatically generating a key & mdash; & mdash; private keys and public keys. Keys are anonymously made public and private keys are identity-specific information. Owners can dispose of and dispose of their bitcoins, bitcoins, and so forth through private keys. That is, Bitcoins, Bitcoin cash can be delivered via Internet technology.
“仲裁庭注意到2017年9月后在中国经营的比特币交易平台被停止了交易业务，但这在技术上并不妨碍被申请人将案涉合同约定的比特币、比特币现金等归还(移转占有)给第二申请人。”仲裁庭说。
& ldquo; Arbitral Tribunal noted that the Bitcoin trading platform, which operated in China after September 2017, had been suspended from trading, but that this did not technically prevent the respondent from returning to the second claimant (transfer of possession) the amounts of bitcoin, bitcoin, etc. that were contractually agreed upon in the case. ” Arbitral Tribunal stated.
仲裁庭坚定地认为，尽管比特币存在于网络虚拟空间，在占有支配以及权利变动公示方法等方面存在特殊性，但并不妨碍其可以成为交付的客体。
The arbitral tribunal firmly held that, although Bitcoin was present in virtual cyberspace, it had special features in terms of possession and change of power publicity methods, it did not prevent it from becoming the object of delivery.
利息能否认定
Whether interest can be considered
既然合同有效，C的不按约履行行为已经构成了违约，仲裁庭裁定C承担违约责任。
Since the contract was valid, C's failure to perform constituted a breach of contract, and the Arbitral Tribunal held C liable for breach of contract.
合同法第六十条规定，当事人应当按照约定全面履行自己的义务。合同法第一百零七条规定，当事人一方不履行合同义务或者履行合同义务不符合约定的，应当承担继续履行、采取补救措施或者赔偿损失等违约责任。
Article 60 of the contract law provides that the parties shall perform their obligations in full, as agreed. Article 107 of the contract law provides that if a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or if performance is inconsistent with the agreement, it shall be liable for breach of contract, such as continuation of performance, remedy or compensation for loss.
据此，按照上述转让协议的规定，仲裁庭认为，A和B作为守约方，有权选择要求作为违约方的C承担赔偿损失或者继续履行的违约责任。
Accordingly, and in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned assignment agreement, the Arbitral Tribunal held that A and B, as parties to the contract, were entitled to elect to require C, as the party in breach, to assume responsibility for the loss or to continue performance of the breach.
仲裁庭发现，如果C诚信履约，其支付股权转让款人民币25万元的履行期限已经届满。因此，对A要求“变更其持有的X公司5%股权至被申请人名下，被申请人支付股权转让款人民币25万元”的仲裁请求，仲裁庭予以支持。
The Arbitral Tribunal found that if C performed in good faith, the period of performance of its payment transfer in the amount of RMB 250,000 had expired. Accordingly, the arbitral tribunal upheld the request for A & ldquo; the change of 5 per cent of the shares held in company X to the name of the respondent, and the respondent paid the transfer in the amount of RMB 250,000 & rdquo; and the arbitral motion.
A的请求满足了，B的请求则有些棘手。因为，B认为，法无禁止即自由，有关比特币数字资产属于法律保护的范围，C明确表示无法返还B交给其管理的数字资产，所以C应赔偿财产损失。由于比特币市场通用计价方式和惯例是用美元计价，C应返还相应价值的美元。
The A request was met, while the B request was somewhat difficult. Because B considered that there was no prohibition, i.e. freedom, the digital assets in respect of Bitcoin were covered by the law and C clearly stated that it could not be returned to the digital assets it administered, C should be compensated for the loss of property. Since the general method and practice of valorization in the Bitcoin market was denominated in United States dollars, C should return the corresponding value of the United States dollar.
C对此不能认同。C提出，虚拟货币没有合法的定价方式和交易场所，因此其价值或价格是无法衡量的，B的主张既无双方约定也无作价依据，不合法也不合理。
C does not agree with this. C argues that the virtual currency has no legal pricing and trading place, and therefore its value or price is incalculable, and B's claims are neither mutually agreed nor price-based, unlawful or reasonable.
仲裁庭则指出，从上述股权转让合同中来看，比特币具有财产属性，能够为人力所支配和控制，具有经济价值，能够给当事人带来经济方面的利益，这是各方当事人一致的意思表示，为各方当事人所认可。该意思表示和认可并不违背法律规定，仲裁庭对此应予认可。
The arbitral tribunal noted, on the basis of the above-mentioned contract for the assignment of equity, that Bitcoin had property attributes, was capable of domination and control of manpower, was of economic value and could bring economic benefits to the parties, which were unanimously expressed by the parties and accepted by the parties. Such expressions and approvals were not contrary to the law and should be accepted by the arbitral tribunal.
民法总则第5条规定，民事主体从事民事活动，应当遵循自愿原则，按照自己的意思设立、变更、终止民事法律关系。第7条规定，民事主体从事民事活动，应当遵循诚信原则，秉持诚实，恪守承诺的原则。
Article 5 of the General Civil Code stipulates that civil subjects shall engage in civil activities and shall be subject to the principle of voluntariness and shall establish, modify or terminate civil legal relations in their own right. Article 7 stipulates that civil subjects shall engage in civil activities in accordance with the principles of good faith, honesty and commitment.
C自愿与A和B签订了股权转让合同，承诺向B归还具有财产属性的比特币等，就应当诚实不欺、信守不怠。而C不仅未按约履行构成违约，还在违约后以比特币交易非法故其价值或价格无法衡量作为其不应承担违约责任的抗辩理由，显然违背诚实信用原则。故对其不履行《股权转让协议》义务给B造成的财产损失，应裁决其予以赔偿。
C voluntarily entered into an equity transfer contract with A and B, committing itself to return to B the property-owned bitcoin, etc. C should not only be honest and faithful to the fact that its failure to perform the contract constituted a breach of contract, but also relied on the value or price of the Bitcoin transaction as a defence that it should not be held liable for breach of contract, in clear violation of the principle of good faith. Therefore, compensation should be awarded for the loss of property caused to B by its failure to perform its obligations under the Equity Transfer Agreement.
值得注意的是，在财产损失金额估算所参考的公开信息上，这一案件的申请人与被申请人也存在着分歧。申请人B提供的是okcoin.com公布的收盘价，被申请人C则认为，该网站未在中国办理备案许可，是非法运营网站；未有证据显示，该网站能合法顺利完成比特币交易等。
It is worth noting that there is also disagreement between the applicant and the respondent in this case regarding the publicly available information used to estimate the amount of property lost.
仲裁庭再次强调，我国未有法律法规规定比特币等的持有或交易为非法，且该网站是否在中国办理备案许可、是否能顺利完成比特币、比特币现金等交易并不影响仲裁庭参考其公开的数据信息对案涉财产损失赔偿额进行估算。
The Arbitral Tribunal re-emphasized that there were no laws and regulations in our country that outlawed the holding or dealing of Bitcoin, etc., and that the fact that the website was licensed in China and that the successful completion of transactions such as Bitcoin and Bitcoin cash did not affect the Arbitral Tribunal's ability to estimate the amount of damage to property in the case by reference to its published data.
对于比特币利息的认定，仲裁庭也给出了自己的看法:所谓利息，一般是指货币持有者(债权人)因贷出货币或货币资本而从借款人(债务人)手中获得的报酬或孳息。而比特币、比特币现金和比特币钻石并不是由货币当局发行的货币，故不存在案涉比特币、比特币现金和比特币钻石对应的利息。
With respect to the determination of Bitcoin interest, the tribunal also gave its view that interest generally refers to the remuneration or fruits received by the currency holder (creditor) from the borrower (debtor) as a result of lending currency or currency capital. Bitcoin, Bitcoin cash, and Bitcoin diamonds are not the currency issued by the monetary authority, so there is no interest on bitcoin, bitcoin cash, and bitcoin diamonds.
若B主张的是比特币、比特币现金和比特币钻石等财产等值金钱的利息，因财产赔偿金额在裁决作出之日方才确定，不存在应付利息之说。所以，仲裁庭对B主张利息的请求，不予支持。
If B claims interest on the equivalent of money in the property such as bitcoin, bitcoin cash and bitcoin diamonds, there is no interest payable because the amount of property compensation was determined on the date of the award. The Arbitral Tribunal therefore does not support B's claim for interest.
交易契约有效
Transactions contract valid
对于这一裁决是否得当，中国政法大学资本金融研究院教授、副院长武长海告诉《法制日报》记者，上述裁决很正确。首先，比特币的交易虽然不受国家强制性法律支持，但也没有说是违法，民法通常是支持其交易价值的，这也相当于认可了其财产性质。例如游戏币，在多个法院判决中，支持其财产价值。
First, Bitcoin’s transactions, while not supported by mandatory national laws, are not said to be illegal, and civil law usually supports the value of its transactions, which is tantamount to recognizing its property nature. For example, playing currency, in several court decisions, supports its property value.
第二，既然通过合同约定了还款，即使以比特币及其交易收益为标的，根据意思自治原则，从合同法的角度，当然应当支持。反之，如果比特币的交易是为了洗钱和违法犯罪活动，当然另当别论。
Secondly, since repayments are contractually agreed, even if they are targeted at bitcoin and the proceeds of its transactions, they should certainly be supported from the point of view of contract law, in accordance with the principle of autonomy. Conversely, if bitcoin transactions are for money-laundering and criminal offences, otherwise, of course.
“在法学理论中，财产与货币并非等同的概念，货币更多的受制于国家监管，而财产的流转应当遵循意思自治和合同自由原则。”齐爱民说。他指出，深圳的仲裁裁决很好地厘清了二者的关系，并本着合同自由的理念肯定了比特币交易契约的有效性，对于比特币正常流通，维护当事人合法权益具有重要意义。作为一种新兴事物，比特币对现有货币体系的挑战并不能否定其作为一种财产的正当存在，我们应当秉持自由、诚信的民法精神，妥善处理法律制度与民事活动间的关系，“使制度成为公民权益的保护伞，而非绊脚石”。
& & ldquo; in legal theory, property and money are not equivalent concepts and money are more subject to State regulation, and the flow of property should be governed by the principles of autonomy of meaning and freedom of contract. & & & & & & & & & & A & A & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ; & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &, & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &, & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &, & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ; & & & ; & & & & & & & & &, &, &, & & & &, & &, & & & & &, & & & & & & & & & & &, & & &,,, & & & &, & & &,,,, & & & & &, &
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