The Shanghai court announced a chain game virtual currency embezzlement case, and found that the loan agreement based on the loss of virtual currency investment was invalid

Shanghai Qingpu Court announced a related case of embezzling the virtual currency of chain games. The plaintiff invested 700,000 yuan in P2E chain game Alexie, entrusted the defendant to play and cultivate 70 chain game accounts, and traded the game currency through virtual currency exchanges. In order to gain benefits, the agreed benefits of the two parties belong to the plaintiff, and the defendant can get a certain remuneration according to the actual benefits. But the defendant secretly resold these virtual currencies and obtained 18,240 U.S. dollars, equivalent to 113,000 yuan in RMB. The defendant had previously admitted the fact of embezzling its virtual currency, and confirmed this behavior as the defendant borrowing RMB 113,000 from the plaintiff, and agreed on a repayment period. However, when the agreed time limit came, the defendant still had not returned the money, so the plaintiff sued the defendant to the court, demanding that he return the loan of 113,000 yuan. According to relevant regulations, if any natural person or legal person invests in virtual currency and related derivatives, which violates public order and good customs, the relevant civil legal act is invalid. Therefore, the "consensus to borrow money" generated by the plaintiff and the defendant based on investment losses should also be deemed invalid. Considering that the defendant had clearly promised to repay the plaintiff’s loss of 113,000 yuan in the letter of commitment and the IOU, and the plaintiff also recognized it, the court ruled that the defendant should return the plaintiff’s 113,000 yuan. The judge pointed out that the trading behavior of virtual currency not only disrupts the normal financial order and economic development order, but also easily breeds illegal and criminal activities such as money laundering, illegal fund-raising, fraud, and pyramid schemes. The relevant contracts signed thereby damage the public interest and should be invalid .