A court in Liaoning heard a virtual currency entrusted financial management dispute case: it determined that the contract was invalid and would not handle it.

Recently, the Zhuanghe Court of the People's Court of Zhuanghe City, Liaoning Province heard a private entrusted financial management contract dispute case involving virtual currency-related transactions. Plaintiff Wang Ping (pseudonym) and defendant Zhao Bin (pseudonym) interacted with each other in the virtual currency exchange business. In 2022, the plaintiff deposited more than 4 million yuan of its funds into the defendant's bank account through mobile phone transfer based on its trust in the defendant, and handed it over to the defendant for specific financial management to make money, and agreed on the profit sharing of the relevant transactions. Among them, the defendant invested approximately 2 million yuan in virtual currency transactions. Most of the investment was used to purchase Tether (i.e. USDT). However, the subsequent investment failed and the losses were huge. The two parties disputed the amount of losses, liability, and profit sharing. Then the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in court in 2023, demanding that the defendant return more than 4 million yuan in financial management funds entrusted by the plaintiff. After hearing the case, the court ruled in accordance with the law to reject the plaintiff Wang Ping's claim regarding the Tether investment part. The parties were dissatisfied. After appeal, the second-instance court heard the case and finally upheld the first-instance court's judgment on this part. After trial, the court held that because the virtual currency transaction violated public order and good customs, the contract should be deemed invalid and not subject to legal protection. The profits or losses of both parties during the performance of the contract, as well as other detailed issues, would not be dealt with. Therefore, The resulting losses were borne by Wang Ping himself. In the end, the court of first instance made the above-mentioned ruling, which was upheld by the court of second instance.