The judgment was made by the court as the result of an appeal about a Litecoin repayment issue. In this case, the appellant Ding Hao refused to comply with a ruling from the preliminary hearing ordering him to repay a large amount of Litecoin borrowed from the plaintiff Zhai Wenjie.
The appellant claimed that Chinese law does not provide legal protection for cryptocurrency trading. The first trial mandated that Ding pay Zhai back 33,000 LTC for the initial borrowed sum. Zhai refused, maintaining that since cryptocurrencies are fundamentally virtual assets and their Litecoin transactions were loans between friends that did not include investment or funding, they should be protected by property law.The appeal was denied by the court, which confirmed the initial decision requiring Ding to refund 33,000 Litecoin to Zhai based on property law on the protection of data and virtual property.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: FOX29philly - 🏆 570. / 51 Read more »
Source: FOX29philly - 🏆 570. / 51 Read more »