The cooperation "mining" contract is invalid, and the court rejects the plaintiff's claim for 570000 yuan in capital contribution Odaily Planet Daily News: According to the Pengpai News · Pengpai Account · Government Affairs Report, the People's Court of Guiyang County has concluded a contract dispute case involving virtual currency "mining" and ruled to dismiss all of the plaintiff Hu's claims in accordance with the law. Hu has reached a verbal cooperation agreement with Zhou, Li, and Peng, in which Hu will contribute funds to purchase "mining" equipment. The equipment will be purchased, installed, and managed by a certain technology company (of which Zhou is one of the shareholders), and Hu will pay a monthly management fee of 10% of the profits to the company. Hu paid a total of 555082 yuan (including 55000 US dollars paid through a virtual currency app, equivalent to 357082 yuan, and 198000 yuan through bank transfer) to purchase equipment. In November 2023, the device's hard drive was lost. In 2024, Hu sued Zhou and four other defendants on the grounds of equipment loss, demanding the return of 570000 yuan in capital contributions. The court held that according to the "Notice on Further Preventing and Dealing with the Risks of Virtual Currency Trading Speculation" (Yinfa [2021] No. 237) jointly issued by the People's Bank of China and ten other departments, virtual currency related business activities are illegal financial activities. In this case, Hu entrusted the purchase of equipment for "mining" and used virtual currency to pay fees and settle management fees, which damaged the status of legal currency and violated public order and good customs. Therefore, the court determined that the commission contract involved in the case was invalid. Regarding the claim for losses, the court believes that the delivery of virtual currency is not enforceable and cannot be discounted; At the same time, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to prove the original number of hard drives, the number of lost drives, and the actual loss, and should bear the adverse consequences of the inability to provide evidence. The court ultimately ruled to reject all of Hu's lawsuit requests, and he shall bear the losses on his own.