A court in Guangzhou heard a dispute over an encryption mining contract: the business is an illegal financial activity and is not conducive to carbon neutrality, and property rights are not protected by law

According to Chinanews.com, the People's Court of Tianhe District, Guangzhou City recently heard a contract dispute case related to virtual currency mining. The court of first instance found that the contract was invalid, and ruled to dismiss all the plaintiff's claims and all the defendant's counterclaims. Later, the defendant refused to accept the appeal and filed an appeal. Because he failed to pay the second-instance case acceptance fee within the prescribed period, the case was regarded as withdrawn. Now the first-instance judgment has come into force. The court informed that, in May 2021, the plaintiff XXX company and the defendant Xma company signed the "Strategic Cooperation Framework Agreement", agreeing that Xma company will provide P disk (Proof of Capacity) service for Xma company. During the service process of the case, one day the company filed a lawsuit on the grounds that a horse company failed to complete the P disk service in full and on time, demanding a refund of the paid service fee and security deposit totaling 295,000 yuan. After the trial, the court held that the case belonged to virtual currency-related business activities. Relevant departments in China have clearly pointed out that virtual currency does not have the same legal status as legal tender, and business activities related to virtual currency are illegal financial activities. Moreover, the mining activities involved in this case consume a lot of energy and carbon emissions, and their contribution to the national economy is low, which is not conducive to the optimization of China's industrial structure, energy conservation and emission reduction, and is not conducive to the realization of the goal of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality. Therefore, the mining contract signed by the two parties should be invalid because it harms the public interest and violates public order and good customs, and the related property rights and interests arising therefrom should not be protected by law, and the consequences caused by the above actions should be borne by the parties themselves.