A man was defrauded of renting a server for mining for RMB 1.65 million. The court ruled that the contract was invalid and ordered the defendant to refund RMB 1.62 million.

The Changsha Intermediate People's Court of Hunan Province issued a typical case of environmental resource trial involving virtual currency "mining". According to reports, the plaintiff Luo and the defendant Hunan company signed three "Server Equipment and Software System Purchasing Service Contracts" on May 7, May 8, and May 18, 2021, respectively. The contract stipulates that the defendant company will provide Luo with 5 servers, with a total purchase price of 1.65 million yuan; the defendant company promises that the "mining" income will not be lower than the average level of the entire network. If fines are caused due to technical problems, the company shall bear the corresponding losses. After the contract was signed, Luo paid 1.65 million yuan in installments to Fan, the actual owner of the defendant Hunan company, as required by the contract. Later, Fan and his company never delivered server equipment and software systems to Luo, nor did they obtain any investment returns promised by Fan and his company. Luo sued the court to terminate the contract and compensate for losses. The Tianxin District Court of Changsha City determined that the contract signed by the plaintiff and the defendant was invalid because it violated public order and good morals. The defendant company spent 60,000 yuan to rent a cabinet from a third-party company. Considering that both parties were at fault for the invalidity of the contract in the case, the loss should be borne by each party for 30,000 yuan. The defendant, a Hunan company, has received 1.65 million yuan from the plaintiff and should return 1.62 million yuan to the plaintiff; the defendant Fan Mou shall bear joint and several liability for the payment obligations undertaken by a Hunan company under his name; and Luo Mou's other claims were rejected. The defendant was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. The Changsha Intermediate Court rejected the appeal in the second instance and upheld the original judgment. The Changsha Intermediate Court commented that in this case, the purchasing service contract signed by the plaintiff and the defendant was to obtain virtual currency by purchasing "mining machines" and entrusting them to operate them to make profits. Such activities affect the country's basic social order such as environmental protection and financial security, violate public order and good morals, and do not meet the requirements of new quality productivity. From the perspective of the effectiveness of civil legal acts, it should be negatively evaluated and the contract in the case is invalid. (The Paper)