Cryptocurrency from the point of view of the Russian Judges
The concept of “cryptocurrency” in Russia was not legally repaired. The “digital asset” bill is under development for a period of two years so far, but has not been considered by the Duma Council in the second reading. In addition, the word cryptocurrency has disappeared from the invoice text in the latest version.
Cryptocurrencies were repeatedly discussed in the Central Bank, and this data were mainly negative. Thus, the Central Bank president recently stated that he opposes private money in a digital form because he can destroy monetary policy and financial stability if he begins to replace public money.
Although transactions with encrypted currency are not organized by special regulations, there are already some legal jurisprudence in cases where the encrypted currency appears.
The texts of the court decisions dealing with cryptocurrencies in this part and the motivation to make decisions about encrypted currencies usually coincide. As a rule, cryptocurrency appears in court cases in many cases, which we will consider below.
These are investments in cryptocurrencies, purchase, mining and blockage of websites containing information on encrypted currencies and cases related to the sale of medicines, where settlements with encrypted currency buyers were made.
Buy Encrypted Coins
A court in the record region stated that there is no legal protection for assets of the encrypted currency and that the owner of this type of virtual currency “faces the risk of losing the money invested in an asset that is not subject to compensation.” In this case, The author was trying to recover the illegal value of his girlfriend’s enrichment, to which he turned a certain amount of Bitcoin coins.
He received the sale and purchase of cryptocurrencies on the stock exchange and removing approximately 600,000 rubles from Bitcoin coins through his girlfriend’s card. When she refused to return the money, he went to court, but the court rejected these allegations.
The court indicated that relations related to currencies encrypted in Russia were not resolved, and Bitcoin was not recognized as electronic money, and its emission is generally prohibited in the territory of the Russian Federation.
As a result, the court stated that “the exchange of digital financial assets (coded currency) against Rublo is not regulated by the current legislation of the Russian Federation. In agreement, the evidence accepted in its arguments in this part Skrynnik D.L. not delivered to the court.”
Curricula can be purchased not only online, but also through cryptomatos. They are machines to buy cryptocurrencies. The law has not regulated the work of cryptomats, but since last year, police have started to confiscate automatically.
Thus, 22 ATMs have been seized by BBFPro for a year. Then the police did, even without preliminary requests from the public prosecutor’s office. The police themselves said they were doing this on behalf of the prosecutor based on a letter from the Central Bank, which assumes a critical position in relation to encrypted currencies.
Judicial decisions are still made against the owner of cryptomats. For example, in June 2019, the Irkutsk arbitration court admitted that the procedures for the seizure of BBFPro ATMs and refused to appeal.
Contribute to the Encrypted Currency
Invest the MMCoin promoter for a 10 % return each month. He lost his investment and went to court. However, the court refused to compensate it, saying: “The activity in the negotiation of cryptocurrencies is full of risks, and there is no legal protection for such assets, and their legal status has not been determined, and the owner of these types of currencies Virtual is subject to the risk of losing the money invested in a base that is not subject to payment. “
In another case, the plaintiff resumed the Consumer Rights Protection Act in order to return the money invested in the encrypted currency. The court also stated that investing in the exchange of encrypted currencies is not regulated by the Consumer Rights Protection Act, and the prosecutor has no right to send this case to the court in his place of residence.
The Russian Federation Law “in relation to the protection of consumer rights” does not apply to transactions with encrypted currencies, because the purpose of making a digital product is to make a profit. In Russia, it is impossible to appeal to the court to demand funds recovery to buy the distinct symbols when participating in the OIC, based on this law.
In general, banks are skeptical in dealing with cryptocurrencies. They can block accounts if these transactions are performed. That’s what Spearbank did, and the court supported her.
Sérbank’s user contract says the card can be banned if the bank suspects that the transaction is implemented to legalize crime revenues or terrorist financing. In this case, the bank not only prohibited the card, but also filed a lawsuit against illegal enrichment.
But investing cryptocurrency in authorized capital for the institution becomes possible. In November 2019, the federal tax department first registered the introduction of cryptocurrency into authorized capital.
Among the founders of Artel was an investor who contributed 0.1 Bitcoin to the capital authorized by 5 % in the project. To contribute to the coded currency for authorized capital, an electronic portfolio was evaluated and an admission procedure and the login and password were transferred.
The plaintiff required him to end his contract to buy mining equipment, as the price of Bitcoin decreased and considered that mining would be thick for energy and irrational.
The court has considered that the change in cryptocurrency exchange rate is not a major change in circumstances, which may be the basis for the termination of the sales contract. The appeal was rejected.
The Mining Equipment Court is a product dedicated to commercial activities, not for personal and domestic use.
In this case, the court called the cryptocurrency “strange money.” The court decided to return the money in exchange for the assets that have already been bought, but refused to compensate for moral damages, because the defendant did not cause moral and physical damage to a specific citizen.
The plaintiff bought 17 pieces of goods, and the court indicated that even a mining goods unit is evidence of a pioneering activity.
In another case, one case was considered when Yershov ordered the purchase of Khromov mining equipment and more mining, and the Bitcoin coins that were extracted to the Yershov account were sent.
9 Bitcoin coins were extracted and then Archouf said he would not pay equipment and mining costs because the efficiency of cryptocurrency mining has decreased. The mining equipment was purchased in the name of Ershov.
The court approved Khrumov’s claims to retrieve funds under the loan and interest contract and the costs of the court.
In the fourth case, prosecutors went to court because they did not receive the expected profit from mining. The court rejected the process based on that Bitcoin does not fit the definition of electronic money and the payment system, nor a foreign currency, and does not fit the objectives of civil rights, and “all operations involving the conversion of Bitcoin coins are the ones that their owners perform their responsibility and risks.
” According to the court, Parishnikov A. and Batura V.N. After agreeing with the conditions to provide mining services, the risks of incurring any financial and / or (lost) damage that may occur to them as a result of delay or impossibility to make electronic transfers. The court also indicated that losses cannot be due to the provision of insufficient quality services, but as a result of the drop in the bitcoin market.
Retained websites containing information on the encrypted currency
Last year, we wrote about cases of prohibition of websites containing information about the encrypted currency. Although these decisions were not enough and unjustified reasons under the law, and we have tried to cancel these illegal decisions in the appeal, Russian judges continue to issue decisions to prohibit encrypted currency information gates. Therefore, in April 2019, the Khabarovsk County Court prohibited a site containing Bitcoin currency information and decided: it is prohibited in the Russian Federation. “
In making these decisions, the courts indicate the clarifications made by the Bank of Russia on January 27, 2014, such as the Khabarovsk Province Court in this case. Central Bank clarifications stipulate that virtual currency operations are speculative operations in nature and may involve legalization (washing) of crime revenues and terrorist financing.
Judges also declared in their 115 FZ resolutions, “regarding the fight against the legitimacy (washing) of the revenue of the crime and terrorist financing.” At the same time, information related to encrypted currencies do not apply to the causes of the site’s illegal blockade, which Roskomnadzor can do, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and other departments.
Sites containing this information are prohibited only by a court decision after the public prosecutor’s statement, who decided that information related to encrypted currencies threaten public principles.
In 2019, the Benza Provincial Court issued a decision on illegal drug trafficking. In the case file, the coded currency is referred to in the account currency. The court drew attention to the fact that the defendants used Bitcoin coins to receive payments because their electronic bills are not personal.
Separately, it was observed that “as a result of the analysis of the evidence examined, the court also demonstrated Vyatkina’s presence against the cryptocurrency currency itself is not used in the formal payment fee in the Russian federation lands.
In addition, in this path, The defendants intentionally obtained the money they received by criminal means and in a way that makes police agencies difficult to reveal these facts.
In another case, the court rejected the defendant’s account that he believed he was selling doping, not drugs. Among the reasons recognized as familiar with the crime mentioned “the intention to obtain a reward for these procedures in the encrypted currency” ** “. It is interesting that the name of the cryptocurrency in the decision of the published court is hidden.