court

According to the Huaxia Times, the People's Court of Jing'an District in Shanghai recently heard a dispute case regarding virtual currency investment. Investor Ms. Wu invested 1.05 million yuan to purchase USDT under the inducement of a live-streaming host, but later was unable to withdraw her funds due to the trading platform being inaccessible.Both the first and second instance of the court dismissed Ms. Wu's claims, determining that virtual currency does not have the same legal status as legal tender, and that related trading activities are considered illegal financial activities, violating public order and good morals, thus constituting invalid civil actions, with losses to be borne by the investor herself. This case echoes the notice issued on February 6 by the People's Bank of China and eight other departments regarding "further prevention and handling of risks related to virtual currencies," reaffirming China's prohibitive policy stance on virtual currencies.

The New York Federal Court dismissed the patent infringement lawsuit filed by entities associated with the Bancor protocol against Uniswap. The judge ruled that the relevant patents involve abstract concepts related to cryptocurrency exchange rate calculations, which do not qualify for patent protection under U.S. patent law. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that implementing a pricing formula on blockchain infrastructure made it patentable, stating that merely confining an abstract concept to a specific technological environment does not make it patentable. The plaintiffs have 21 days to submit a revised complaint.Uniswap founder Hayden Adams briefly stated on social media that a lawyer just told us we won.

A local court in Nevada, USA, has rejected the state regulator's request for an emergency ban on Coinbase's operation of prediction markets.The Nevada Gaming Control Board had previously filed a lawsuit, accusing Coinbase of offering unlicensed sports event contract betting products in the state and seeking a temporary restraining order. The court did not approve the emergency injunction but instead decided to hold a hearing next week, allowing Coinbase to respond. Coinbase's Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal stated that the company has simultaneously filed a lawsuit in the state's federal court, claiming that the Commodity Exchange Act grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) "exclusive jurisdiction" over swaps and event contracts listed on regulated exchanges, and that the state regulator's attempt to classify these tools as state-level gambling conflicts with the federal derivatives regulatory framework.

According to Cointelegraph, a local court in Nevada, USA, has dismissed the request from state regulators to urgently prohibit Coinbase from operating prediction markets.The Nevada Gaming Control Board previously filed a lawsuit, accusing Coinbase of offering unlicensed sports event betting products in the state and seeking a temporary restraining order. The court did not approve the emergency injunction but decided to hold a hearing next week, allowing Coinbase to respond. Coinbase's Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal stated that the company has simultaneously filed a lawsuit in the state's federal court, asserting that the Commodity Exchange Act grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) "exclusive jurisdiction" over swaps and event contracts listed on regulated exchanges, and that the state regulators' attempt to classify these tools as state-level gambling conflicts with the federal derivatives regulatory framework.

Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal posted on the X platform that the Nevada Gaming Control Board previously sought support from a Nevada court to unilaterally block it from launching any sports-related or other types of activity contracts in Nevada without providing an opportunity for debate. Today, the court rejected this request.Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal argued that due process requires at least an opportunity to obtain a hearing.

According to the Russian newspaper "Kommersant," the large Russian Bitcoin mining company BitRiver is facing a serious crisis and may be heading towards bankruptcy. Its parent company has had bankruptcy observation procedures initiated by an arbitration court, with the main creditor, the En+ Group's "Siberian Infrastructure" company, demanding the repayment of over $9.2 million in debt.The report points out that BitRiver has fallen into a legal dispute with En+ due to failing to deliver equipment after not receiving advance payments for it. At the same time, the company is also facing multiple lawsuits from power companies seeking to recover unpaid electricity bills, totaling hundreds of millions of rubles. Due to its inability to pay electricity bills and local bans, BitRiver has ceased operations at several data centers in Irkutsk, Buryatia, and other locations. It is estimated that the company previously held over 50% of the mining market in Russia. The company is currently negotiating changes in ownership and the transfer of remaining assets.According to previous news from ChainCatcher, the CEO of the Russian Bitcoin mining company BitRiver was arrested on suspicion of tax evasion.

A Nevada court in the United States issued a temporary restraining order against Polymarket, prohibiting the entity behind Polymarket, Blockratize, from offering event-based contracts in the state for a period of two weeks. The court found that Polymarket's activities might violate Nevada's gaming laws and are not protected by federal derivatives regulations.

The Russian Constitutional Court recently ruled that cryptocurrency assets fall under the category of property protected by property rights, a decision that is expected to have far-reaching implications for future civil disputes and criminal cases involving cryptocurrency assets.Ignat Likhunov, head of the Russian law firm Cartesius, stated that this ruling provides clear legal grounds for law enforcement agencies and courts when dealing with issues related to stolen or disputed digital assets, and establishes an important precedent. The ruling also clarifies that as long as cryptocurrency assets are legally obtained, their property rights should be protected by the judiciary, even if they have not been declared to tax authorities.The case originated from a civil lawsuit filed by Moscow resident Dmitry Timchenko. In 2023, Timchenko lent 1,000 USDT to another party, but the latter failed to return it as agreed. A lower court had previously dismissed his claim on the grounds that "stablecoins are not within the scope of digital financial asset legislation." The Constitutional Court pointed out that failing to declare cryptocurrency assets does not automatically negate property rights, and the relevant declaration obligations only apply to miners.As this ruling comes into effect, Russia is advancing a new round of cryptocurrency regulatory legislation. Analysts believe that this judgment provides clearer judicial protection for cryptocurrency holders before the legislation is completed.

According to Jinshi, U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin stated that the trade agreement with the European Union has not yet been finalized. Trump has the emergency power to impose tariffs. The likelihood of the Supreme Court overturning Trump's tariffs is low.

According to Jinshi Data, White House National Economic Council Director Hassett: After the Supreme Court's (unfavorable) ruling, Trump can immediately implement a 10% tariff.

According to Jin Shi, the U.S. Supreme Court will not make a ruling on the tariff case of the Trump administration on Friday.

On December 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of South Korea ruled that Bitcoin stored in centralized exchanges is subject to seizure under the Criminal Procedure Act. The court upheld the decision to seize 55.6 Bitcoins held by a suspect in a money laundering investigation. The ruling stated that Bitcoin possesses independent manageability, tradability, and economic value.This ruling means that users of platforms such as Upbit and Bithumb will face clearer legal risks, as criminal assets can be directly frozen or seized on trading platforms.

Guided by the Chinese Criminal Law Research Association and the Shanghai High Court, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court and the Law School of Renmin University of China jointly hosted a seminar on criminal trials, focusing on the theme of "Legal Uniformity in Cases Involving Virtual Currency Crimes." The discussion content is summarized as follows:The determination of "subjective knowledge" in virtual currency money laundering crimes should be assessed comprehensively to prevent objective attribution of guilt.The identification of the types of acts and standards for completion in virtual currency money laundering crimes involves: first, accurately grasping the essence of the crime, which is "concealing and disguising the source and nature of criminal proceeds and their profits"; second, the acts of concealing and disguising criminal proceeds and their profits, as stipulated in the elements of the money laundering crime, constitute the completion of the crime; third, strictly combating money laundering crimes in accordance with the law to resolutely safeguard national financial security.The determination of illegal operation crimes involving virtual currency indicates that if the behavior does not possess characteristics of business operations and merely involves personal holding or trading of currency, it is generally not recognized as illegal operation. However, if the individual is aware that others are illegally buying or selling or indirectly trading foreign exchange and still provides assistance through the exchange of virtual currency, and the circumstances are serious, they should be recognized as an accomplice in illegal operation crimes.

According to the Beijing Legal Network WeChat public account, the Beijing High People's Court has released 5 typical cases of punishing telecom network fraud in accordance with the law, including a cross-border telecom network fraud case that utilized virtual currency for investment. The defendant committed fraud in Chaoyang District, Beijing, by using overseas chat software to invite others to purchase virtual currency and invest in designated platforms, and transferred the fraud proceeds through virtual currency.It was found that the gang defrauded a total amount of over 900,000 US dollars (equivalent to over 5 million RMB). The court accurately determined the amount of fraud based on objective evidence such as the salary performance table of the involved company, sentencing Liu to twelve years in prison for fraud and imposing a fine.

Trump stated that the United States needs to fully acquire Venezuela's oil and other resources, and also needs access to roads and bridges.In addition, according to CNN, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is expected to appear in federal court in downtown Manhattan at noon Eastern Time on Monday. The hearing will be presided over by Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Federal Court ruled that NGS Group Limited and its affiliates NGS Crypto and NGS Digital operated financial services illegally without holding an Australian Financial Services License (AFS), and they have now been permanently banned from engaging in related activities and ordered to be liquidated.It is reported that approximately 450 Australian investors invested around AUD 59 million through these companies, most of which were made through self-managed superannuation funds encouraged by NGS. The court has appointed professionals from McGrath Nicol as liquidators to handle the company's assets and return funds to investors as much as possible. ASIC Deputy Chair Sarah Court stated that NGS completely disregarded Australian financial services laws, leaving investors without basic protections. ASIC's investigation into the company and its directors is still ongoing.

The authoritative journal "Digital Legal Governance," supervised by the Supreme People's Court of China, has recently published its 6th issue of 2025 (the 18th overall). This issue focuses on digital transactions, electronic currency, virtual property, generative artificial intelligence, and data element governance, with several articles directly addressing the institutional foundational issues related to blockchain and crypto assets, signaling a clear acceleration in the improvement of legal governance for digital assets.In the "Overseas Observations" section, the articles systematically review the 2022 amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in the United States, focusing on electronic contracting, electronic currency, virtual property based on distributed ledgers, and the new form of property rights known as "controllable electronic records." It argues that the institutional design in aspects of circulation, control, guarantee, and good faith acquisition of virtual currency has significant reference value for China's digital asset and blockchain legislation. Additionally, several articles in this issue discuss topics such as training data for generative artificial intelligence, data portability rights, public data, autonomous driving and intelligent connected vehicles, and digital copyright protection, emphasizing the need to balance technological innovation, market efficiency, and rights protection through institutional reconstruction in the context of rapid technological evolution.Analysis indicates that "Digital Legal Governance," as an important theoretical window within the Supreme Court system, focusing on digital transactions, electronic currency, and virtual property, shows that these topics have moved from the academic frontier into the core vision of judicial and institutional design, providing important policy and theoretical references for the future improvement of rules related to blockchain, digital assets, and Web3.

The WeChat official account of the Supreme People's Court published an article in its managed academic journal "Digital Rule of Law" titled "Commercial Law Reform Facing Digital Transactions, Electronic Currency, and Virtual Property," which points out: The amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code, jointly revised by the American Law Institute and the Uniform Law Commission, were officially passed in 2022 and subsequently widely adopted by state legislatures in the United States. These amendments incorporate a variety of transaction methods, including electronic forms, clarify the relationship between tangible currency, central bank digital currency, and other virtual currencies, create a new type of property called "controllable electronic records," and specify the control and circulation rules for such property.China's civil and commercial regulations should also be oriented towards the development of digital transactions, electronic currency, and virtual property, aiming for practical-oriented legal improvements to stimulate economic and technological development and gain an advantage in international institutional competition.

Custodia Bank has submitted a petition for en banc rehearing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding its legal dispute with the Federal Reserve. The bank argues that the Federal Reserve's refusal to establish a master account undermines the authority of state banks and raises constitutional issues. Custodia Bank requests the court to reconsider its October ruling, which supported the Federal Reserve's denial of the bank's access to core central bank payment services, a struggle that has become a precedent for cryptocurrency banks seeking access to the U.S. payment system.

According to market news, last week the UK Supreme Court rejected an appeal filed by BSV investors in a case where the investors attempted to claim over $13 billion from a well-known cryptocurrency exchange.The appeal stemmed from losses incurred after mainstream cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance and Kraken delisted the BSV token in 2019, causing its value to plummet. The latest litigation process and appeal permission were overseen by three court judges, who ultimately rejected the appeal.The appellant—BSV Claims Limited—claimed that the value of the token immediately dropped after it was delisted, and its potential growth was hindered, resulting in "immediate and ongoing impacts" as well as losses from the "missed growth effect" for token holders. In July 2024, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim regarding the "missed growth effect," rejecting the assumption that BSV would eventually grow to a value equivalent to Bitcoin. In May of this year, the appellant attempted to reassert this claim but was rejected again.