A court in China ruled that Tether is not considered a legal tender in a two -person encoding dispute, Han and Ji.
The issue of encoding in China includes tether
The Tongzhou People’s Court, Nantong City, Jiangsu County, headed the case, which focused on a special lending dispute between two friends who include an encrypted currency. In the end, the court rejected the plaintiff’s request to pay.
According to my legislative WebsiteG -Han persuaded that investing in virtual currency tension will be very profitable. Then Ji used the HAN mobile phone to buy 2000 Tether on a platform, claiming that it will manage the investment on behalf of Han. However, Ji later transferred 2000 dreams to his own account. When it’s time to pay, Ji failed to fulfill his promise, and Han was unable to recover the main investment. In response, Han called the police.
After that, Han Waji reached an agreement to convert the virtual currency treatment into an official loan relationship. Ji issued a tarry note for 15,000 yuan, and promised to pay Han. However, Ji still failed to pay the loan, prompting Han to take legal action.
After reviewing the case, the court referred to “the notice related to the continuation of the prevention and risks of virtual currency trading”, issued by ten government departments, including the Popular Bank of China, the Central Electronic Space Affairs Committee, and the Supreme People’s Court.
The notification stated that virtual currencies are not issued by the monetary authorities, not a legal tender, and cannot be circulated or used as a currency in the market. He also made it clear that any investment in virtual currencies that violate public order and good morals would make the relevant civil legal actions inactive, as the investor bears any resulting losses.
In this case, Han argued that the loan he provided to J was dependent on the delivery of Tether through an investment platform. However, the court ruled that “Tether is not a legal tender, and it has no legal compensation, and it cannot be circulated or used as a currency in the market.” As such, the court found that Tether could not be considered to meet the loan commitment to the agreement. Therefore, the court did not realize the loan agreement between Han and Ji, and they decided that Han’s demand to pay was lacking in realistic and legal basis.
Also read: China: criminals commit fraud with Blockchain, encryption, artificial intelligence
