Chinese citizens entrusted the operation of overseas virtual currency "mining machines," and the Guangzhou court ruled that the contract involved is invalid

ChainCatcher news, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court held a press conference on the effectiveness of foreign-related civil and commercial trial work and typical cases. A sales contract involving the purchase of "mining machines" for virtual currency operations overseas was deemed invalid due to its disruption of China's financial order.

Wang Mouming and Zheng Mou are both Chinese citizens. The two parties negotiated via WeChat, and Zheng purchased 24 specialized servers for virtual currency "mining" from Wang Mouming for 1.024 million yuan, paying the full amount. It was agreed that Wang Mouming would transport the "mining machines" to Mongolia for operation and maintenance, with the electricity costs borne by Zheng and Chen Mouxiong. After the "mining machines" were transported to Mongolia, they frequently encountered online issues and were still under the actual control of Wang Mouming without being delivered. Therefore, Zheng filed a lawsuit to confirm the sales contract as invalid. Wang Mouming argued that Mongolian law should apply to this case and that the contract was valid. Chen Mouxiong clarified that he had no sales relationship with Wang Mouming and did not claim rights to the "mining machines." The effective ruling of the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court stated that although this case is foreign-related, both parties are Chinese citizens. The contract in question, which involved the sale of "mining machines" and their transportation to Mongolia for Bitcoin "mining," pertains to public interests in China, such as ecological environment and financial security, and should be governed by Chinese law.

The "mining machines" in question are specialized equipment for "mining." "Mining" is energy-intensive, and virtual currency trading is considered illegal financial activity, disrupting China's financial order. The contract in question is invalid due to its violation of public order and good morals, and relevant handling was made based on the degree of fault of both parties and the performance of the contract.