Zhang worked as a blockchain engineer in a network company. While he was involved in the development of a project, he learned that there was a large amount of Ethereum in the project account, and he had evil thoughts and wanted to attack the company account to obtain Ethereum.

So Zhang took advantage of his work and asked his colleagues for program codes and private keys that were beyond his work authority on the pretext of "code learning".

According to Zhang, he once joined a "technical group" in which members could obtain virtual currency for arbitrage by cracking codes. So he shared the code and private key with the group and invited group member Jack to crack the code and attack the company account to obtain 106.15 Ethereum.

Zhang said that he would "launder" the Ethereum he obtained, intending to distribute it after it rose in value. He converted the Ethereum into other forms of currency, transferred it through multiple accounts including his wife's, and then transferred it back to his own account. After the company discovered that the virtual currency in the account had been stolen, it quickly reported it to the police, and Zhang was arrested by the public security authorities.

After calculation, Zhang made a total illegal profit of RMB 38,329.76. After the prosecution was filed by the procuratorate, the Changping Court formed a collegial panel to hear the case in public. During the trial, the defendant Zhang argued that he was just sharing the code address and project information on the "tech skirt", and that the Ethereum was transferred by others by scanning the private key, and 18 of the Ethereum were given to him by Jack as the labor income for sharing code and other information. In addition, Zhang also said that a certain project developed by the company itself was a risky transaction and the risk should be borne by the company itself.

After trial, the Changping Court held that, based on the evidence in the case, such as the circulation of the Ethereum involved, the information of the Ethereum code address and the corresponding private key extracted from Zhang's computer, the chat between Zhang and his wife containing "money laundering" and relevant witness testimonies, it was sufficient to determine that the defendant Zhang violated regulations, asked others for program codes and private keys, illegally obtained Ethereum information from the company's computer system, and made profits from part of the Ethereum transactions.

The defendant Zhang’s defense in court that he only shared code addresses and project information in the group was inconsistent with the facts found by the court’s evidence. Regarding Zhang and his defense counsel’s claim that the company’s project should be risk-free and not protected by legal interests, the court believes that the risks of virtual currency transactions and the nature of the company’s project do not affect the legal evaluation of the defendant Zhang’s behavior based on the facts found and the relevant legal provisions.

The defendant Zhang illegally obtained virtual currency information stored in the computer system in the form of computer data without permission, and his behavior constituted the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data. Company management loopholes and staff errors are not grounds for the defendant Zhang to be exempted from responsibility for committing a crime, and the court does not accept the relevant opinions.

In this case, the defendant Zhang violated state regulations, invaded the computer information system, and obtained data stored in the computer information system. The circumstances were particularly serious. His behavior constituted the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data and should be punished according to law. The facts of the case are clear, the evidence is solid and sufficient, and the charges are established.

Finally, the court ruled that the defendant Zhang committed the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data and sentenced him to three years and six months in prison and a fine of RMB 60,000. At the same time, the defendant Zhang's illegal gains of RMB 38,329.76 were recovered and confiscated according to law. After the first-instance judgment, the defendant Zhang appealed. The second-instance ruling rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The case is now effective.

Follow me to get more cryptocurrency news!#内容挖矿 #ETH