Practical discussion: Overview of key issues in virtual currency investment and mining

On September 3, 2021, the National Development and Reform Commission and other departments issued the "Notice on Rectifying Virtual Currency "Mining" Activities" (Development and Reform Operation [2021 〕No. 1283) (hereinafter referred to as Notice 93) states that "virtual currency 'mining' activities refer to the process of producing virtual currency through special 'mining machines' calculations, which consume large amounts of energy and carbon emissions." The development of virtual currency in any name is prohibited. 'Mining' project; accelerate the orderly exit of existing projects. ""Strictly implement relevant laws, regulations and rules, and seriously investigate and punish illegal virtual currency 'mining' activities in various places."

Going overseas Mining, is the signed agreement valid?

Mining is also known as the "graphics card gym" in the industry. After the 93 notice, domestic mines have shut down, virtual currency investors chose to turn their targets to overseas markets (such as the United States, Russia, Kazakhstan, etc.) and go overseas for mining.

In order to avoid domestic Due to relevant policy and legal risks, as well as language and geographical inconvenience, investors will choose to sign a mining equipment sales and custody service agreement with a Chinese company or individual with relevant resources, and entrust others to "mine" on their behalf abroad. . So will the validity of such a contract be affected because the contract is performed overseas (legal overseas, but prohibited domestically)? This article discusses this issue.

1. Common mining transaction models

In order to circumvent domestic regulatory policies, Chinese investors sign the " Mining Machine Equipment Sales Contract" and its "Equipment Custody Service Agreement". Under this type of transaction model, the buyer purchases the mining machine from the seller, and the seller manages the equipment for the buyer (i.e., provides virtual currency mining services, runs the mine machine to produce virtual currency).

The seller does not need to deliver the equipment to the buyer, but places the mining machine in a foreign mine and hires local personnel to carry out the operation. Mine management. The buyer pays the seller for the mining equipment and electricity, and receives the virtual currency earned by the seller from mining. The seller’s profit mainly comes from the difference in electricity bills.

If the counterparties to the contract are both domestic institutions or individuals, the contract is performed in an overseas country that recognizes the property attributes of virtual currencies and mining activities are legal, and the contract stipulates that the dispute resolution agency shall be a domestic court, then the validity of such a contract shall be How to determine this? If the mining machine sales and custody agreement is signed before the issuance of Notice 93 (September 3, 2021), will the validity of the contract be affected?

< strong>2. Can Chinese law govern foreign affairs?

To solve the above questions, we must follow the law Talk of extraterritorial application began. Extraterritorial application of domestic law refers to the process by which a country applies laws with extraterritorial effect to persons, objects and behaviors outside its jurisdiction. This includes both the application and enforcement of domestic laws by domestic administrative agencies and the implementation of judicial jurisdiction by domestic courts. acts, but does not include acts in which domestic courts apply domestic legal rules chosen by the parties with autonomy or apply domestic laws guided by conflict norms to resolve disputes. The legal binding force generated by this process is the extraterritorial effect of domestic law [1].

At present, the legal liability of the current extraterritorial application rules is mainly criminal liability. For example, Article 6 of the "Criminal Law" stipulates that any This law also applies to crimes committed on board Chinese ships or aircraft. If any criminal act or result occurs within the territory of China, it is deemed to be a crime within the territory of China. Article 7 of the Criminal Law stipulates that this law shall apply to Chinese citizens who commit crimes outside the territory of China, except where the maximum penalty is fixed-term imprisonment of less than three years. Such clauses use the principle of personal or territoriality as the connecting point to determine the applicable rules of our country's Criminal Law.

Legal regulations that restrict businesses related to virtual currencies and mining activities include the 2017 "On Preventing Token Issuance Financing Risks" jointly issued by seven departments including the People's Bank of China. Announcement", in 2021, the People's Bank of China and other departments "Notice on Further Preventing and Dealing with Speculation Risks in Virtual Currency Transactions", and on September 3, 2021, the National Development and Reform Commission and other departments "Notice on Regulating Virtual Currency "Mining" Activities Notice" etc. The above-mentioned provisions do not belong to laws or administrative regulations in terms of effectiveness, and it is not clear whether this provision applies to Chinese citizens engaged in virtual currency-related businesses overseas. Therefore, the aforementioned regulations cannot restrict Chinese citizens from investing in mining machines in overseas mines for mining.

3. From the perspective of the purpose of the contract

< p style="text-align: left;">The determination of the validity of the contract should be based on the objective understanding of mining activities in my country's laws, regulations and relevant policies. From the perspective of the purpose of the contract, Chinese citizens purchase mining machines to mine overseas in order for the mining machines to produce virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. In fact, the purpose is to directly obtain benefits under the legal currency system through the exchange of virtual currency and legal currency. ultimately achieve its investment purpose.

Under my country's legal system, relevant departments rectify virtual currency "mining" activities and determine that virtual currency-related business activities are illegal financial activities, and mining machines and Both parties to the custody contract engage in mining activities in order to obtain high profits. If a dispute arises between the buyer and the seller and goes to court, it is simply that the seller is no longer able/willing to provide equipment purchase, delivery or mining services, the seller sues the buyer to pay the unpaid electricity bill, and the buyer demands the return of the equipment, equipment payment or the seller. Pay with virtual currency earned from mining, etc. The rights and interests pursued by these parties are contrary to my country’s policy of cracking down on virtual currency investment and mining activities.

Summary

Therefore, from " From the perspective of the high energy consumption of "mining" behavior and the impact of Bitcoin trading activities on the country's financial order and social order, combined with my country's judicial practice, the mainstream judgment trend is to determine that the contract is invalid. Because my country has formulated relevant policies to crack down on virtual currency-related services since 2013, whether the mining machine sales and custody contract is signed before or after September 3, 2021 will not have a substantial impact on the court’s determination of the validity of the contract. Influence.

my country’s courts determine the validity of virtual currency mining contracts

As mentioned above, in virtual currency mining contract disputes, the vast majority of cases are found to be invalid. Moreover, as the relevant departments of our country have continued to issue documents on virtual currencies and related businesses since 2013, and have severely cracked down on related policies, the judicial tendency is generally consistent with my country’s attitude towards continuously cracking down on virtual currency-related policies. .

Through big data retrieval of judicial documents, it can be found that although most courts have determined that the contracts in such cases are invalid, there are also related cases that have determined that the contracts are valid. Andthe regions where the cases that have determined that contracts are valid are mainly in Beijing and Shanghai. The judicial practice experience of these regions has always been a leader and a reference for the country.

Next, this article shares two cases to see how the court discussed the validity of contracts in such cases.

Case 1[2]Basic case facts:

Zhang made an agreement with He to purchase mining machines and BSN coins (virtual currency "BSN coins", both the plaintiff and defendant stated that the currency had been removed from the shelves before it went online), and Zhang agreed to purchase mining machines and BSN coins from September 13, 2019. , successively paid the mining machine payment and BSN currency payment to He. There was no written contract signed by both parties. Zhang asked He for a refund of more than 600,000 yuan on the grounds that the mining machine he received could not be used and BSN coins were not received, so the purpose of the contract could not be achieved.

Court proceedings:

Court of First Instance It is believed that:

(1) The BSN coin sales contract is an invalid contract. Reason: According to the "On Preventing Token Issuance Financing Risks" implemented in September 2017 "Announcement" (hereinafter referred to as "94 Announcement"), all types of token issuance and financing should be stopped immediately from the date of the announcement. Although there are no laws or administrative regulations that explicitly prohibit the trading of the above-mentioned investment/financing virtual currencies, the above-mentioned illegal proxy Currency issuance and financing activities have indeed been expressly prohibited by the People's Bank of China and other financial regulatory authorities. Therefore, this type of behavior and subsequent extended trading activities should be prohibited.

(2) The mining machine sales contract is valid. Because the mining machine itself has property attributes and can not only generate BSN coins, it cannot be ruled out that it can also generate other virtual currencies.

The first instance of this case was heard by Shanghai Minhang Court. Later, the plaintiff was dissatisfied and appealed to Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate Court.

The court of second instance held that:

(1) BSN currency The sales contract is valid. Although the announcement jointly issued by the People's Bank of China and other departments in September 2017 stipulates that no organization or individual shall illegally engage in token issuance and financing activities and token financing platforms shall not buy or sell so-called virtual currencies, in this case Zhang purchased BSN coins from He Hong As well as mining machines, trying to mine more BSN coins for profit is not a situation in the announcement. my country's laws and administrative regulations do not prohibit the holding and legal circulation of virtual currencies or tokens, nor do they prohibit the normal trading of virtual currencies between private individuals.

(2) The mining machine sales contract is valid and the reasons are the same.

Lawyer’s interpretation:

There are two sales contracts in this case The legal relationships include a mining machine sales contract and a virtual currency sales contract.

As for the mining machine sales contract, both courts recognized the property attributes of the mining machine. Notice 93 was issued in September 2021, and the date of the second instance judgment was December 2021. Therefore, the court's decision did not have a substantial impact on the trial of this case due to the issuance of Notice 93.

As for the virtual currency sales contract, the two courts made completely different judgments. The key lies in the different understandings of the 94 Announcement by the two courts. The content of the 94 announcement refers to ICO (Initial Coin Offering), which prohibits any organization or individual from conducting token issuance financing activities. The court of first instance gave an expanded interpretation to the content of the announcement, extending the “financing” behavior to the “purchasing and selling of virtual currency between individuals”. The court of second instance believed that the content of the announcement should not be expanded upon, and in fact, my country does not prohibit individuals from holding or buying and selling virtual currencies. Therefore, it believed that the virtual currency sales contract was valid.

As for the quality problems of the mining machine pointed out by the plaintiff (the light does not light up and cannot be used), there is no evidence to prove it, so the court determined that the plaintiff should bear the disadvantages himself. as a result of. The court of second instance ultimately judged whether the payment for goods should be returned based on whether the goods were delivered.

Case 2[3]

Basic Facts of the case:

Yang learned that a company owned a storage device node, and the company promised to run the storage device node to issue a server that will issue virtual currency soon. Mining coins to earn profits. On May 15, 2021, Yang signed a "Storage Equipment Sales and Escrow Contract" with xx Data Technology Co., Ltd. After Yang paid the price of the hardware server, the company failed to fulfill its contractual obligations (it failed to deliver the promised benefits and promised to issue virtual currency online. The servers available for mining coins are not online, and even if the company's storage equipment is purchased, coins cannot be mined; the company has not exchanged FIL mining machines of equal value for Yang).

Court hearing situation:

The court held that the contract in this case was signed Before the 93 announcement, the contract was valid. The company cannot prove that its contractual obligations have been fulfilled, so the relevant amounts should be returned.

Lawyer’s interpretation:

The reasons why the court determined that the contract was valid It is too thin. Through big data retrieval of judicial documents in various regions, it can be found that whether the contract is signed before or after the issuance of Announcement 93, it does not affect the court's review of the validity of the contract. Therefore, although the case was tried by the Beijing District Court, it can only be regarded as an individual case and does not have universal reasoning significance.

The mining contract is invalid, can the investment be recovered?

If the contract is deemed invalid, from the perspective of the buyer, can the seller be asked to return the money, and how much can be refunded? What responsibilities does one need to bear? From the seller's perspective, if it has paid relevant costs to perform the contract and has actually performed its contractual obligations, should it still return relevant funds to the buyer? These are questions that need answers.

1. If the court considers the contract to be invalid, how will the case be handled?

From the perspective of civil procedure law, if the court considers the contract to be invalid, there will be four possible outcomes: rejection, The lawsuit was dismissed, the claim was dismissed, and each was ruled to bear corresponding responsibilities.

The first two are made directly after a procedural review (without substantive review); the latter two are made by the court after a substantive review. . However, the first three results are meaningless to the suing party (usually the buyer) because the court has not made any substantive treatment of the plaintiff's claims.

According to the 19 cases we searched, the court refused to accept the case in 1 case and dismissed the claims in 6 cases. The judgment (under the premise that the contract was deemed invalid ) each bears corresponding responsibilities in 10 cases.

Therefore, a preliminary conclusion can be drawn: Even if mining machine contract disputes are brought to court, there is a certain extent that the court will not handle the case. possibility, and the possibility is not small.

The court’s reasoning for not accepting this type of case is: the virtual currency “mining machine” sales contract claimed by the appellant was not for the purpose of the contract. This aspect is highly related to the virtual currency "mining" behavior prohibited by laws and regulations. This contractual relationship is not protected by law and is a matter for cleanup and rectification by relevant departments. It does not fall within the scope of civil cases that the People's Court should accept.

The court’s reasoning for rejecting the parties’ claims in such cases is generally as follows:

(1) Energy saving and emission reduction. "Mining" activities consume large amounts of energy and carbon emissions, which is not conducive to the optimization of my country's industrial structure, energy conservation and emission reduction, and is not conducive to my country's achievement of carbon peak and carbon neutrality goals.

(2) Financial risk. Virtual currency-related trading activities have no real value support, and prices are easily manipulated. "Mining" behavior also further induces false asset risks, business failure risks, investment speculation risks and other related financial risks, endangering the order of foreign exchange management and finance. The lack of order may even lead to illegal and criminal activities and affect social stability.

(3) When the relevant national departments have repeatedly publicized the elimination of backward production technology and equipment and the optimization of industrial structure, both parties should have responded Despite this warning, the two parties continued to reach a deal to purchase "mining machines". Both parties were at fault for the current situation, and both parties should bear corresponding responsibilities for the resulting losses.

However, when the court ruled that both parties should bear corresponding responsibilities, the reasoning for finding the contract invalid was actually basically the same as the reasoning for rejecting the parties' litigation claims.

2. If the contractis invalid, what will be the consequences for the buyer and the seller?

If the court conducts a substantive trial on this type of dispute, the results of the case can be subdivided into three types:

Scenario 1: Dismissal of the litigation claim

If both parties believe that both parties should bear their own risks, then for the buyer Therefore, you should bear the risk that all the money paid cannot be recovered. For the seller, for example, if the seller actually performs the contract and mines coins for the buyer, but the buyer does not pay the electricity fee generated by the operation of the mining machine, the cost of the electricity fee paid by the seller in advance cannot be recovered.

Scenario 2: It is believed that the contract is invalid, that is, it is invalid from the beginning, and no fault liability is divided

In this case, the court held that under the background of the promulgation of Notice 93, the contract was invalid because it violated public order and good customs. The court did not review the performance of the contract. If both parties incurred losses due to the performance of the contract, they should also At your own expense. 【13304】

Scenario 3: Even if the contract is deemed invalid, both parties will bear corresponding responsibilities according to the proportion of their faults

< p style="text-align: left;">Compared with situation two, situation three is more fair and reasonable to both parties. Under different circumstances, the court will examine more carefully and identify factors such as the performance process of the contract by both parties, the reasons why they cannot continue to perform (national policy reasons and personal reasons of both parties), the degree of fault of both parties, and the costs paid for it. Unfortunately, such cases are rare. Among the 10 judgment documents in which each party assumed corresponding responsibilities (on the premise of determining that the contract was invalid), only 3 cases were found.

3. Typical case analysis

Case Three[4]: The contract is invalid, but the fault liability corresponding to the performance of the contract is not reviewed

Basic case facts:

On May 16, 2018, the plaintiff purchased a mining machine from the defendant. The two parties signed a "Sales Contract" and the plaintiff paid more than 120,000 yuan. Yuan. The defendant handed over the mining machine purchased by the plaintiff to a person outside the case for custody and signed an "Equipment Custody Service Agreement." Since the plaintiff was unable to check the points earned by the mining machine on the app subsequently (only available for the first three months after signing the contract), the plaintiff believed that the purpose of the contract could not be achieved and requested the defendant to return the payment.

Court hearing situation:

The first instance rejected the plaintiff’s petition , the second instance ruled that the appellee (defendant in the original instance) should return the payment of more than 120,000 yuan.

Lawyer’s interpretation:

The two courts in this case The idea of ​​​​judgment corresponds to the above situations one and two.

This case has gone through two trials. Regarding the finding that the contract was invalid, the opinions of the two courts were unanimous. However, the resulting consequences were completely different in the judgments of the two courts:The first instance held that the plaintiff should bear the risk at his own risk and rejected the plaintiff's petition; the second instance held that the defendant should return the payment for the goods.

According to our big data case search, simply and rudely rejecting the plaintiff’s petition is indeed a way for the court to make a decision, but after all, the mining machine This type of case is a new type of case, and courts in different places and at all levels have different understandings of it. For the buyer, if the appeal is rejected, it still has certain positive significance to consider an appeal.

The court of second instance did not state the actual performance of the contract, nor did it evaluate the costs paid by both parties (especially the defendant) due to the performance of the contract. . According to the judgment, both parties have no objection to the fact that the mining machine has been running for a period of time. During this period, the defendant must have paid corresponding costs (signed an "Equipment Custody Service Agreement" with a person outside the case). How much was this cost? In what proportion should both parties bear the burden? Why did the equipment stop running later? What costs did the defendant incur as a result of the cessation of operation? Was the defendant at fault for the equipment being out of service? If the court further considers the respective responsibilities of each party according to the proportion of fault, then these issues need to be resolved.

Case 4[5]: The contract is invalid, and the court determines the sharing of liability based on the degree of fault of both parties< /p>

Basic facts of the case:

June 21, 2021, The two parties signed a "Server Hosting Service Agreement", stipulating that the plaintiff purchased a mining machine from the defendant and let the defendant host it for three years, and paid a fee of 198,000. The defendant should start operation and provide BZZ mining services on July 13, 2021. Although the defendant has made preliminary preparations for the plaintiff's server, such as putting on the computer room and debugging the system, it has not actually produced BZZ coins so far. The defendant also failed to deliver the equipment involved in the case to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff requires the defendant to return the above 198,000 yuan and losses due to equipment interruption.

Court hearing status:

The court determined that the contract was invalid. Both parties bear corresponding responsibilities according to the degree of fault. Regarding the equipment operation losses claimed by the plaintiff, because the contract was invalid, the plaintiff's claim had no factual or legal basis, and the court did not support it. Regarding the legal consequences of invalidity of the contract, both parties should bear liability based on their fault. The court determined that the loss caused by the performance of the contract was 30,000 yuan. Considering that the mining machine was still controlled by the defendant (according to which the fault procedures of both parties were divided), the defendant was responsible for 20,000 yuan and the plaintiff was responsible for 10,000 yuan. Therefore, the defendant should return 188,000 yuan to the plaintiff.

Lawyer’s interpretation:

Although only one signature was signed in this case contract, but there are actually two legal relationships: mining machine sales and custody contracts. In [Case 1], the court determined the validity of the two legal relationships separately, but most cases will not distinguish in detail, and this case is no different. The court held that the purpose of the "Server Hosting Service Agreement" was that both parties attempted to profit from virtual currency "mining", which violated public order and good customs, and therefore the contract was invalid.

The court referee’s thinking is divided into three steps.

The first step is how much loss has been incurred to fulfill the contract;

The second step is how to divide the proportion of fault responsibilities of both parties;

The third step is to calculate the amount of losses that each party should bear based on the proportion of faults of both parties.

However, in the first step, the court will generally not determine the actual loss, but after considering various reasonable factors (this is also the court's decision in practice (the usual practice) to make a comprehensive determination (for example, in this case, the original and defendant’s actual losses were far more than 30,000 yuan). Similarly, the second step is for the judge to determine the proportion of fault between the two parties based on the facts of the case.

Generally speaking, among the 19 valid cases retrieved, the judgment result of this case is relatively fair and reasonable.

4. Relevant legal basis

Virtual currency The contract types of mining disputes are mainly sales contracts and (equipment hosting) service contracts. Contract disputes correspond to the second-level causes of action in my country's "Provisions on Causes of Action for Civil Cases", while sales contracts and service contracts correspond to the third-level causes of action. In other words, sales contracts and service contracts, as named contracts in the Civil Code, have their own special and more detailed regulations.

However, if such a contract is found to be invalid due to violation of public order and good customs, the special provisions of the famous contract will not be further applied, but the " General provisions of the Civil Code.

According to Article 157 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China", "a civil legal act is invalid, revoked or determined not to occur." After the act takes effect, the property obtained by the actor as a result of the act shall be returned; if it cannot be returned or there is no need to return it, it shall be compensated at a discount. The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered thereby; if both parties are at fault, they shall Each shall bear corresponding responsibilities. If the law provides otherwise, such provisions shall prevail.”

Corresponding to cases involving invalid contracts in virtual currency mining disputes ,

(1) If the court believes that the contract has not been performed, or that the contract has been performed but the parties themselves are at fault and should bear the risk at their own risk, the judgment shall be dismissed. The plaintiff petitions;

(2) If the court believes that the contract is invalid, that is, it has no legal effect from the beginning (regardless of the performance status) and should be restored to the original status, the judgment will support The plaintiff (buyer) returns all the payment for the goods;

(3) If the court believes that the contract is invalid and both parties are at fault, the fault liability should be shared proportionally, the judgment part Return the purchase price to the plaintiff (buyer).

But the current embarrassing situation is that even for the same case, different courts may have the above three different verdicts. Our country’s judicial practice may still have to go through a long process to understand virtual currency mining disputes.

Other legal issues involved in mining contract disputes

1.  Does the date of signing the mining contract affect the validity of the contract?

The issuance and effective date of the 93 Notice is September 3, 2021.

In cases where the contract was signed before September 3, 2021, the (2022) Beijing 0115 Minchu No. 9524 judgment held that the contract in this case was signed in the 93 Notice before, the contract is valid. However, this is the only case among the 19 valid cases in which the contract was deemed valid on this basis, and the rest were deemed invalid.

In cases where the contract was signed after September 3, 2021, the contract was deemed invalid.

It can be concluded from this that the signing time of the contract will basically not affect the judge’s determination of the validity of the virtual currency mining contract. The author believes that this is because since 2013, relevant regulatory agencies in my country have continuously issued documents prohibiting the redemption and trading of virtual currencies such as Bitcoin on relevant platforms in my country.

Although the 93 Notice was released in 2021, the content of the notice is in line with the content of relevant laws and regulations previously issued by our country. It can be seen that our country’s regulatory policies The virtual currency is in the stage of continuous understanding and improvement. Thus, the judicial authorities’ understanding of the validity of the contract is also a judgment made under the macro background of my country’s laws and regulations related to virtual currency.

2. The investment was paid with virtual currency, can I get it back?

Let me start with the conclusion: it is controversial.

The reasons for the non-refundability of the judgment are generally as follows:The "money" paid between the two parties is virtual currency and does not have legal compensation. It does not have the same legal status as currency and cannot and should not be used as currency in the market.

Judgments support restitution, such as the (2020) Zhejiang 0112 Minchu Civil Judgment No. 2997. The basic facts of the case are: the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the plaintiff would return the mining machine it purchased It was entrusted to a third party for operation, and the defendant collected the Bitcoin rewards generated by the mining machine. However, the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff after collecting it, so the plaintiff sued. The court held that my country has not explicitly prohibited the trading of Bitcoin as virtual property, and Bitcoin can still be used as a transaction object under contract law. The final judgment ordered the defendant to return the RMB discount corresponding to Bitcoin to the plaintiff.

3. Can requiring the other party to pay overdue interest be supported by the court?

Among the 19 cases counted by the author, except for those where the plaintiff’s petition did not involve an interest request and where the court even ordered the principal (mining machine payment) After all cases that are not supported (let alone the interest corresponding to the principal), there are still 11 valid cases left. Among them, 6 cases were not supported by the court's judgment; 5 cases were supported, and after deducting 2 cases in which the judgment date was before the issuance of Notice 93, only 3 cases remained.

The reasons for the judgment not to support interest are: The use of "mining" behavior to obtain profits violates public order and good customs[6], the plaintiff There is also fault in the invalidation of the contract [7], and investors should bear their own risks [8]. The agreement between the two parties on the liability for breach of contract already includes interest, and repeated claims are not allowed [9].

The reasons for the judgment in favor of interest are: The contract has stipulations (and the contract is valid); the contract has stipulations (Note: However, the court found that the contract If it is invalid, then the plaintiff’s claim for interest has no legal basis or contractual basis. The author disagrees with this judgment). The contract was invalid but the court recognized that there was a loss of capital occupation[10].

The above is a summary of issues related to virtual currency mining contract dispute cases and related legal regulations. In judicial practice, because this type of case is still a new type, difficult and complex case, courts in various places have different adjudicative standards for contract disputes related to virtual currency mining. Even for the same case, there are large differences in the trial ideas of the first and second instance courts. .

Due to the special provisions of my country’s regulatory policies, in practice, the resolution of virtual currency mining disputes involves many complex factors. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the relevant parties of mining equipment to the maximum extent, specific analysis and specific determination are required in individual cases.

Note:

[1] Liao Shi’s comment: "Domestic Extraterritorial Application and Responses - Taking Measures of Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Domestic Laws as an Example, published in Global Law Review, Issue 3, 2019.

[2] (2021) Shanghai 0112 Minchu No. 15465, (2021) Shanghai 01 Minzhong No. 11624

[3](2022)Beijing 0115 Minchu No. 9524

[4](2021) Guangdong 01 Minzhong No. 22072

[5](2022)Hunan 0104 Minchu No. 1613

[6](2022) Guangdong 01 Minzhong No. 19334

[7](2022) Shaanxi 0103 Minchu No. 8275, (2021) Guangdong 01 Minzhong No. 22072

[8](2021)Hunan 0182 Early Republic of China No. 13304

[9](2020)Zhejiang 0112 Early Republic of China No. 2997

[10](2022) Beijing 0115 Republic of China No. 9524

[11 ](2022)Zhejiang 0108 Republic of China No. 552

[12](2022)Xiang 0104 Republic of China No. 1613