A very magical case occurred today, which is very interesting.
To put it simply, in 2022, a college student launched a local dog. When he saw someone recharged 50,000 U, he directly withdrew from the pool. The whole process took only 24 seconds.
The person who distributed the local dog felt that he had been defrauded, so he filed a case in Nanyang. Subsequently, the college student who distributed the local dog was also arrested. He was sentenced to four and a half years in prison and fined 30,000 yuan in the first instance.
Seeing this, I guess those dog farmers who are still in China will not be able to sleep well tonight.
This case is particularly interesting, and there are several details worth talking about.
First of all, the issuer Yang is actually a Hangzhou college student born in 2000. And at this age, he can already add 300,000 U of liquidity to the pool, which probably makes many people feel ashamed.
The second point is that the person who was cut off, Mr. Luo, was not a good person either. He bought in the first second of the opening and kept selling in the next few seconds.
It is obvious that they are using scripts to make arbitrage and are playing the game of getting a head start on the opening. Some people call them "hair-pullers" and some people call them scientists.
Why do we say he is not a good person? If Yang is the sickle, then Luo is the one who carries the sedan chair. He bought the coin purely to grab cheap chips and sell them to the people behind him.
The third point is that group members start their own businesses and then cut off group members.
Many people are curious about how the police found Yang, as the Tugou token was issued anonymously. Are the Nanyang police's technical investigation methods so advanced?
This is the most interesting point in this case - these two people should be group members if nothing unexpected happens.
Because according to the description of the case, the victim found Yang through a common WeChat friend when tracing the source, which means that either Yang himself leaked the news, or the two of them were in the same group.
Then Luo asked Yang to compensate for the loss, but Yang refused and said confidently:
I just made up for the big cuts that got me back. I got cut a lot.
Seeing that there was no hope of recovery, Luo called the police, which led to the scene at the beginning of the article.
The fourth point, I guess you will all laugh when I tell you this - the victim actually did not lose any money.
There are two statements in the article: 1. Luo made a lot of profit.
2. The current price of the currency is higher than the $50,000 that Luo lost.
In other words, Luo's loss occurred at the moment when his more than 80,000 coins could only be exchanged for 21.6u.
Now that we have finished talking about the fun stuff, let’s talk about something serious.
The current sentencing in the first instance is based on the crime of fraud, but Yang’s defense lawyer has objections.
But Juzuo took a look and decided that based on the current situation, fraud must have occurred, because the coin issuer Yang had the intention of illegal possession both in action and in language, and used deceptive methods.
Including his own famous saying: I'm just making up for the big cuts that I got, I've been cut a lot.
But if this logic is valid, smart people will realize that Luo's behavior is essentially the same. He has a clear understanding of this kind of currency, and his purpose is to sell it to the next person to take over, and he does so in operation.
Then why is Luo okay?
The reason is actually very simple, because Luo was able to find Yang, and the facts of fraud and victimization on both parties were established.
Luo grabbed cheap chips at the opening and quickly sold them, which was indeed for the purpose of illegal possession. He even lured "leeks" to take over by carrying a sedan chair, which is theoretically very close to fraud.
But because no victim came forward, or no victim was found and the case was not linked to Luo, in this case, Luo was the victim and Yang was suspected of fraud.
And if one day someone else comes forward to file a case and Luo is implicated in the end, he will also be suspected of fraud.
So from the current perspective, although this judgment is controversial, it still stands, because it is indeed for the purpose of withdrawing the pool after others have added liquidity, this is confirmed.
But if the lawyer is good enough, there is still room for defense. It depends on your ability.
The second controversial point should be the biggest controversial point in this case:
Is digital currency considered property?
The prosecution's materials defined it this way: Through multiple exchanges and conversions, Yang defrauded Luo of RMB 330,000.
And this 330,000 yuan became the basis for Yang's final sentencing.
If converted into RMB 30,000, the sentence would definitely not be 4 and a half years.
The defense attorney believes that my country's current policy does not consider virtual currency to be legal tender or currency, so you cannot directly convert it into RMB based on the U price, which runs counter to current policies and regulations.
The relevant regulations issued by the state to crack down on the industry have actually become a shield for the sickle in its defense.
Is it magical?
Officially, this thing should be equal to air.
But according to market consensus, this thing is the digital dollar.
Therefore, transactions are calculated in US dollars.
After the accident, the double-skin phenomenon is calculated according to the air.
Because of the unclear legal principles, a deeper contradiction has arisen:
On the one hand, it said: "If any legal person, non-legal person organization or natural person invests in virtual currency and related derivatives and violates public order and good morals, the relevant civil legal acts will be invalid, and the losses caused by this will be borne by themselves."
On the other hand, cases related to virtual currency are being filed, and there is even a phenomenon of profit-seeking law enforcement in some areas.
There is already a huge rift between the government and the public on whether it is property and whether it is protected.
In terms of actions, we all follow the consensus among the people, but in specific cases, we all follow the official statement.
This world has finally become something I dare not imagine.
