聚焦精品案例? 解读适法难点
Focus Fine Case?
为促进适法统一，发挥优秀案例示范作用，上海市高级人民法院官方微信公众号开设“案例参考册”栏目，精选上海法院参考性案例等精品案例，专业解读适法难点，一图读懂裁判思路，为同类案件审理提供参考借鉴。
In order to promote the harmonization of applicable law and to serve as a model for good cases, the Shanghai City High People's Court's Official Micro-Certificate Public has set up a section entitled “Reference Books of Cases”, which selects such fine cases as reference cases from the Shanghai High People's Court.
程某申请执行施某某
其他所有权纠纷案
关键词
虚拟财产 / 比特币 / 返还交付 / 折价赔偿
Virtual property / Bitcoin / Return delivery / discounted compensation
裁判要旨
The main message of the strong is .
比特币作为虚拟财产，具有财产属性，受财产权法律规范的调整。在比特币执行返还交付时，执行法院参照物之交付请求权规范处置，并判断被执行人有无可供执行的比特币。如被执行人无可供执行的比特币，基于公共利益、善意文明理念考量，经双方协商一致，以双方认可的价格进行折价赔偿；若协商不成，申请执行人可另行起诉。
Bitcoin, as a virtual property, has property attributes and is regulated by property rights law. When Bitcoin executes the return delivery, it executes the court delivery request regulation and determines whether the executed person has a bitcoin that is enforceable.
案例解读
钱政骁上海师范大学法律硕士，现任上海市宝山区人民法院执行局法官助理。曾获上海市公务员系统嘉奖，撰写的案例获评最高法院年度优秀案例分析。
He is currently an assistant judge of the Executive Board of the Shanghai People’s Court. He has received an award from the Shanghai Civil Service and has written a case that has been evaluated for the annual excellent case analysis of the Supreme Court.
基本案情
原告程某向法院起诉，要求被告施某某向其返还一个比特币。经审理，法院判令被告施某某返还原告程某一个比特币。
After a hearing, the court ordered the defendant to give a certain amount of bitcoin to the plaintiff.
判决生效后，被执行人施某某因未履行生效法律文书，申请执行人程某向法院申请执行。受理后，法院向被执行人发出执行通知书，责令其履行判决义务并申报财产，但被执行人未能履行。
After hearing the judgement, the court issues a notice of enforcement to the person who is the subject of an application for enforcement for failure to comply with the legal instrument in force.
执行法院通过现有的网络查控系统，未能查询到被执行人名下有可供执行的比特币。随后，执行法院通过传统查控，拟向其比特币开户交易平台发出执行裁定书及协助执行通知，要求平台协助执行。但该平台注册在海外，故未查询到该平台有效的通讯地址。另查明，被执行人名下比特币已悉数转给案外人，且案外人不知所踪。被执行人已向公安机关报案，并立案侦查。
The enforcement court, through the existing web-based control system, failed to trace the amount of bitcoins available for enforcement under the name of the executed person. Subsequently, the enforcement court, through its traditional control, intended to issue an enforcement decision and a notice of assistance in execution to its Bitcoin trading platform. However, the platform was registered overseas and therefore did not have a valid communication address for the platform.
执行法院将情况告知申请执行人。此时，双方当事人表示愿意协商。综合案件情况，法院主持双方进行执行和解。
The enforcement court informs the applicant, at which point the parties express their willingness to consult.
裁判结果
Results of the decision
裁判思路
▼点击查看大图
Click to see the big picture
附：案例全文
Annex: Full text of the case
案例撰写人
钱政骁
Money-Gong-hoon.
案情介绍
briefing
2020年10月10日，原告程某向上海市宝山区人民法院提起诉讼，要求被告施某某向其返还一个比特币。经审理，法院于2021年2月23日作出民事判决：被告施某某于本判决生效之日起十日内返还原告程某一个比特币。
On 10 October 2020, the plaintiff went to the People’s Court of the City of Shanghai to sue for the return of a bitcoin to one of the defendants. On 23 February 2021, the court handed down a civil judgement: the defendant applied for the return of a bitcoin to one of the plaintiffs within 10 days of the date of the entry into force of the present judgement.
判决生效后，被执行人施某某因未履行生效法律文书，申请执行人程某于2021年5月7日向法院申请执行，要求被执行人施某某返还一个比特币。法院受理后，于2021年5月8日向被执行人发出执行通知书，责令其履行判决义务并申报财产，但被执行人未能履行。
Upon the entry into force of the judgement, the person against whom an application for enforcement was made by an executor for non-compliance with the legal instrument in force applied to the court on 7 May 2021, requesting the person against whom a return of a bitcoin was made. After the court had accepted the decision, on 8 May 2021, a notice of enforcement was sent to the person against whom enforcement was ordered to comply with the sentence and to declare the property, but the person against whom enforcement was made failed to do so.
执行法院于2021年5月8日通过全国法院网络执行查控系统(以下简称“网络查控系统”)对被执行人名下财产情况进行查询，但未能查询到被执行人名下比特币的情况。
On 8 May 2021, the Executive Court, through the National Network of Courts, implemented a system of surveillance and control (hereinafter referred to as the “Network Control System”) to inquire about the property under the name of the executed person, but failed to find out about the situation under the name of the executed person in Bitcoin.
随后，执行法院拟向被执行人开户的比特币交易平台发出执行裁定书及协助执行通知，要求平台协助执行。执行法院未查询到该平台在中国境内有效的通讯地址及联系方式。另查明，被执行人名下比特币已悉数转给案外人，且案外人不知所踪。被执行人于2020年8月27日向公安机关报案，并立案侦查。
Subsequently, the enforcement court intended to issue an enforcement decision and a notice of assistance in the execution of the Bitcoin transaction platform, which was opened by the executor. The enforcement court failed to check the address and contact information of the platform in force in China. It also found that the executor’s name, Bitcoin, had been transferred to an outsider in all cases and that the outsider was unknown. The executor reported the case to the public security authorities on 27 August 2020 and opened a case investigation.
执行法院将情况告知申请执行人。同时，双方当事人表示愿意协商。鉴于双方当事人有意和解，执行法院综合案件情况，主持双方当事人进行执行和解。
The enforcement court informs the applicant. At the same time, the parties express their willingness to negotiate.
裁判结果
Results of the decision
上海市宝山区人民法院于2021年5月27日组织双方当事人进行执行和解。和解过程中，申请执行人认可被执行人无可供执行的比特币的情况。经双方当事人同意，进行折价赔偿，并达成一致意见：
On 27 May 2021, the Shanghai Po Mountain People’s Court organized an enforcement settlement between the parties.
第一，申请执行人不再要求被执行人返还一个比特币。
First, the applicant no longer required the person to return a bitcoin.
第二，双方当事人经协商，一致同意被执行人以申请执行人出借时的购入价人民币84,000元折价赔偿给申请执行人。
Second, the parties agreed, after consultation, that the person to be executed should be compensated for the purchase price of RMB 84,000 at the time of the applicant's loan.
第三，若被执行人届时未履行，申请执行人可就此另行主张权利。
Third, the applicant may claim a separate right in the case of non-fulfilment by the respondent at that time.
裁判理由
执行法院认为，本案执行难点在于一是比特币强制执行案件中如何适用法律规则，二是施某如何返还比特币给程某，如不能返还交付，应如何处置。
The enforcement court held that the difficulty of enforcement in this case lay in the applicable legal rules in the Bitcoin enforcement case and in the manner in which a certain amount of money was to be returned to a certain destination and, if it could not be returned to delivery, what should be done.
比特币的法律认定是比特币强制执行法律适用的首要前提。
The law of Bitcoin is considered to be the primary prerequisite for the application of the enforcement law of Bitcoin.
一审认为，比特币具有价值性、稀缺性、可支配性等特点，故其具备了权利客体的特征，符合虚拟财产的构成要件。我们认为，法院在强制执行的过程，应贯彻审执兼顾的原则，以民事判决中比特币的法律认定作为法律适用的基础，参照财产权法律规范进行执行处置。
The first instance held that Bitcoin was valuable, scarce, disposable, etc. and thus characterized as a object of rights, in line with the constituent elements of virtual property. In our view, the court, in the enforcement process, should apply the principle of judicata, using the legal findings of Bitcoin in civil judgements as the basis for the application of the law, as a reference to the legal norms of property rights.
其次，比特币如何返还交付。返还交付应查明被执行人有无可供执行的比特币。
Second, how bitcoin is returned to delivery.
执行法院调查方式有：
Court investigations are carried out in the following ways:
1、网络查控系统；
1. Network control systems;
2、传统调查，包含询问调查，发查询函，现场调查等。
2. Traditional surveys, including inquiries, inquiries, on-site investigations, etc.
目前网络查控系统仅能查询银行、汽车、证券等传统的财产，无法查询到比特币这类虚拟财产的情况。
Currently, the network control system only has access to traditional assets such as banks, cars and securities, and does not have access to virtual property such as Bitcoin.
另外，执行法院拟向本案中比特币交易平台发出协助执行通知时，发现该交易平台系海外公司，无有效通讯地址。此时，传统调查显得尤为重要。经查，被执行人已将比特币已悉数转给案外人，且案外人下落不明。执行法院将情况告知申请执行人，申请执行人表示认可。
Moreover, when the enforcement court intended to issue a notice of assistance to the Bitcoin trading platform in this case, it found that the trading platform was an offshore company with no valid address. The traditional investigation was particularly important at this point.
据此，可推定被执行人无可供执行的比特币，根据《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>的解释》（以下简称《民诉法司法解释》）第四百九十五条第二款规定，他人持有期间财物或者票证毁损、灭失的，参照本解释第四百九十四条规定处理，即物之交付请求权的规则执行。
On this basis, it may be assumed that there is no enforceable bitcoin for the person to be executed, in accordance with article 495 (2) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Judicial Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law), according to which the rules governing the right of delivery of goods, i.e. the right of delivery of goods, are enforced in accordance with the provisions of article 494 of the Interpretation.
适用该条时，法院应考虑财产是否是特定化的问题。我们认为，所谓的特定化是指不可替代性，然比特币并不是不可替代，故产生两种执行方案，一是购买交付，二是折价赔偿。
In applying the article, the court should consider whether the property was specific. In our view, so-called specialization means that it is not an alternative and that Bitcoin is not an irreplaceable alternative, so that two enforcement options arise, one for the purchase of delivery and the other for the commutation of the price.
结合当下我国金融政策，禁止虚拟货币交易流通，购买交付有损公共利益，并不妥当。在征询双方当事人后，都表示愿意折价赔偿，这符合当事人意思自治原则，也保障执行高效有序。
In the context of our current financial policy, it is not appropriate to ban the circulation of virtual currency transactions, and the purchase of deliveries is not in the public interest.
最后，折价赔偿标准应双方当事人协商一致。
Finally, the standard for commutation should be agreed between the parties.
如上文所述，目前比特币禁止交易流通，没有市场参考价。执行法院只能组织双方当事人协商折价赔偿，即在不损害第三人的前提下，由执行法院引导、组织双方当事人对标的物自主协商定价。
As noted above, there is currently no market reference price for the transactions in Bitcoin.
协商中，法院需注意比特币作为虚拟财产的特殊性，应明确议价规则，并做好特别告知，如执行风险及法律后果，法院对议价结果的合法性、合理性审查等。若双方当事人协商不成，申请执行人可另行起诉。
In the course of the consultations, the court is required to take note of the special nature of Bitcoin as a virtual property, to clarify the bargaining rules and to give special notice, such as the risk of enforcement and the legal consequences, the court’s review of the legality and reasonableness of the outcome of the bargaining.
综上所述，经执行查明，被执行人已无法返还比特币，在征询双方意见后，以折价赔偿方式处理。折价赔偿中，双方当事人进行议价，协商一致后，达成执行和解。由于，原审判标的已灭失，双方当事人在执行中，一致同意变更为金钱给付，若被执行人未履行执行和解协议，则申请执行人可就此另行起诉。
As a result of the above, the executor is no longer able to return to Bitcoin and, after consultation with the parties, is dealt with in the form of a discounted compensation. In the commutation, the parties negotiate and agree upon an enforcement settlement. As the original subject matter of the trial has been lost, the parties agree in enforcement to change to a monetary payment, and if the executor fails to comply with the settlement agreement, the applicant may sue the executor separately.
案例评析
case assessment
比特币是基于区块链技术形成的加密数字货币。由于缺乏相应的法律法规，导致比特币强制执行中法律适用模糊，执行处置结果不一，而这些正是执行实践中难点问题。
Bitcoin is an encrypted digital currency based on block chain technology. The absence of appropriate laws and regulations has led to vague application of the law in Bitcoin enforcement and mixed results in enforcement, which is precisely the difficulty of enforcement practice.
一、厘清比特币的法律的定位
比特币虽称“币”，但不是法律意义上的货币。货币是指由国家发行的，作为法定清偿和记账手段的信用货币。而没有国家信用背书的比特币，无法成为具有广泛性的支付手段。
Bitcoin is not a currency in the legal sense. Currency is a credit currency issued by the state as a means of legal settlement and accounting.
在我国人民币是法定货币，这意味着，债权人在没有特别约定的情形下无义务接受债务人以比特币进行的给付。因此，比特币不具有法偿性，无法成为真正的货币。
In the case of our people, the currency is the legal currency, which means that creditors are not obliged to accept payment by the debtor in bitcoin in the absence of a special agreement. As a result, bitcoin is not legal and cannot become a true currency.
那如何对比特币进行法律认定？
So how do you make a legal determination in bitcoin?
（一）抽丝剥茧：多重学说下比特币的法律认定
(i) Skinning cocoons: multiple studies on the legal findings of Bitcoin
关于比特币的法律认定，学术界存在很多争议，而这些争议的实质是想从传统的民事权利理论中，寻找到认定依据。
The law on Bitcoin held that there was much controversy in the academic world and that the essence of those disputes was to find the basis for a determination from the traditional theory of civil rights.
目前主流观点：
Current mainstream view:
1、物权说，认为比特币是具有特定性和独立性的无形物；
1. In rem claims that Bitcoin is considered to be an intangible with specificity and independence;
2、债权说，从网络运营商与网络用户之间的服务合同关系出发，认为其是网络用户主张债权的权利凭证；
2. Claims are said to be evidence of the right of network users to claim claims, based on the contractual relationship of services between network operators and network users;
3、知识产权说，认为比特币是无形财产，是一种智力成果；
Intellectual property claims that Bitcoin is considered an intangible property and an intellectual achievement;
4、新型财产说，认为比特币的独特性足以让其成为新型民事权利的客体。
New property claims that the uniqueness of Bitcoin is sufficient to make it an object of new civil rights.
上述学说都只从比特币的某一方面进行分析，并不全面。如物权说，民法通说的“物”指的是有体物，不包括无体物，而且我国遵循物权法定原则，比特币不构成物权客体；其次，债权的客体是行为，比特币是通过矿工“挖矿”获得的，其依托“去中心化”的区块链上，并不存在一个中心兑付机构来承兑比特币，所以它不是债权；再者，比特币是通过计算机对一种特定加密算法的大量运算，并不是智力成果；最后，新型财产说需要对比特币的概念进行重构，然目前立法上未加以明确。
The above doctrine is analysed from only one aspect of Bitcoin and is not comprehensive. For example, in rems, the term “matter” in the civil law general refers to the existence of objects, excluding incorporeals, and our country follows the legal principle of property rights, and Bitcoin does not constitute a object of property; secondly, the object of the claim is an act, obtained through the “mining” of the miner, which relies on the “decentralized” chain, and which does not have a central paying agency to hold on Bitcoin, so it is not a claim; secondly, Bitcoin is a computer-based substantial calculation of a particular cryptographic algorithm and is not an intellectual achievement; and finally, the new type of property says that it needs to be reconstructed by the concept of “declared”, which is not clearly defined in the current legislation.
在多重学说的讨论之下，无法对比特币进行法律上的认定，故而从司法实践方面寻找答案。
In the context of the discussion of multiple doctrines, it was not possible to make a legal determination in relation to the currency, and therefore to seek answers in judicial practice.
（二）司法实践：比特币是网络虚拟财产
(ii) Judicial practice: Bitcoin is virtual property on the Internet
我国监管部门发布的《关于防范比特币风险的通知》（2013年）提及“从性质上看，比特币应当是一种特定的虚拟商品”，但虚拟商品是经济术语，而非法律概念。
The Circular on Protection against the Risk of Bitcoin (2013) issued by our regulatory authorities refers to “in its nature, Bitcoin should be a particular virtual commodity”, but virtual goods are economic terms rather than legal concepts.
审判实践中，人民法院对比特币的法律定位形成统一意见，认定其为虚拟财产。
In trial practice, the legal positioning of the People's Court in Bitcoin formed a unified opinion that it was regarded as virtual property.
例如，吴某与上海耀志网络科技有限公司、浙江淘宝网络有限公司网络侵权责任纠纷案 [(2019)浙0192民初1626号]、李某、布兰登?斯密特诉闫某等财产损害赔偿纠纷案[(2019)沪01民终13689号]、陈某诉张某返还纠纷案[(2020)苏1183民初3825号]等案件中，法院认为比特币通过“挖矿”产生，需要购置、维护相关的专用机器设备，支付耗电能源的对价才能获得。同时其可以产生经济收益，具备价值性；其次，比特币的总量受算法的影响恒定为2100万个，具备稀缺性；最后，比特币的持有者对比特币进行占有、使用、收益及处分，使其具备可支配性，符合虚拟财产的构成要件。
For example, in such cases as the dispute between Wu and Shanghai Yozhi Network Technology Ltd. and Zhejiang Trea Network Ltd. Network Liability for torts on the Internet, the Court held that Bitcoin was generated through “mining”, requiring the purchase and maintenance of related specialized machinery and equipment to pay the price of electricity-consuming energy. At the same time, it could generate economic benefits and have value; secondly, the total number of Bitcoins affected by the accounting law was set at 21 million and was scarce; and finally, the amount of Bitcoins was held by its holders to take possession, use, gain and dispose of the special currency in a manner consistent with the composition of the virtual property.
虚拟财产，又称网络虚拟财产。《中华人民共和国民法典》第一百二十七条虽明确其受法律保护，但未对其概念、适用作出具体规定。司法实践中，法院本着司法实用主义的态度，并不对虚拟财产的法律性质作出直接判断。因其具有一定的经济价值，符合财产属性，故适用财产权法律规则进行保护。
Article 127 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China states that it is protected by law, but does not specify its concept and application. In judicial practice, the courts do not judge directly the legal nature of virtual property.
二、比特币执行的现实困境
司法实践中，标的物的返还交付分为当事人自行履行或法院强制执行。前者不必赘述，后者是在当事人拒不履行生效判决后，法院通过司法强制力对标的物 “占有”后，转交申请执行人。鉴于比特币的特殊性，故有必要对其返还交付中遇到的问题进行分析。
In judicial practice, the return of the subject matter is divided into the parties' own performance or enforcement by the courts. The former need not repeat the fact that, after the parties have refused to comply with the judgement in force, the court “possesses” the subject matter by judicial coercion and forwards it to the applicant. Given the special nature of Bitcoin, it is necessary to analyse the problems encountered in the return of the subject matter.
（一）比特币执行的现状
(i) Status of Bitcoin implementation
从中国裁判文书网显示关于比特币民事强制执行裁判文书仅有6例，涉及北京4例，江苏1例，广东1例，其中比特币为执行标的的北京4例，另外2例将比特币作为被执行人的财产。
According to the Chinese Network of Judicial Instruments, there were only six cases of decisions on the civil enforcement of Bitcoin, four in Beijing, one in Jiangsu and one in Guangdong, four in Beijing, and two in which Bitcoin was used as the property of the executed person.
从文书上看，比特币执行主要面临两大困境，一方面如何获取比特币的相关信息，另一方面如何对比特币进行司法控制。
As far as the instrument is concerned, Bitcoin enforcement faces two major dilemmas: on the one hand, how to obtain relevant information about Bitcoin and, on the other, how to exercise judicial control over bitcoin.
（二）比特币执行困境的表现
(ii) Performance of Bitcoin Implementation Dilemma
1、比特币信息的获取
1. Access to Bitcoin information
执行法院获取标的物信息有两种途径，一是网络查控系统；二是传统调查。
There are two ways for the enforcement court to obtain subject information, namely, a web-based control system and a traditional investigation.
网络查控系统根据最高人民法院与人行、各相关部委签订备忘录，开通联网系统，目前可查询被执行人全国范围内的不动产、存款、车辆等16类25项信息，但无法查询比特币等虚拟财产。
The network control system, which operates a network system based on memorandums between the Supreme People's Court and the Bank and relevant ministries, currently has access to 16 types of information on real estate, deposits, vehicles, etc. throughout the country, but does not have access to virtual property such as Bitcoin.
而传统调查受财产线索不明确，如本案中比特币交易平台系海外企业，在我国境内没有通讯地址，及国家间司法协助政策、货币监管制度、金融运行规则迥异的影响，执行法院很难在调查取证方面有所建树。
In contrast, traditional investigations have been hampered by unclear property leads, such as the fact that in the present case the Bitcoin trading platform is an offshore enterprise, that there are no communications addresses in the country, and that there are wide variations in the policies of mutual legal assistance between States, the monetary regulatory system and the rules governing financial operations, which make it difficult for the enforcement courts to make any progress in obtaining evidence in the investigation.
2、比特币的司法控制
2. Judicial control of Bitcoin
如何司法控制比特币？比特币是存放在交易平台上的比特币钱包中，比特币钱包会产生无数个钱包地址，每个地址都可以存入或支付比特币。
How is the judicial control of Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a bitcoin wallet stored on a trading platform, which produces numerous wallet addresses, each of which can be deposited or paid in bitcoin.
同时，平台自动生成对应秘钥对，包含一组“私匙”和“公匙”。每个比特币地址都对应一把“私钥”，若想使用钱包里的比特币就要用“私钥”进行签名，称为数据加密。“私钥”是随机产生的，经特定算法得到“公钥”，“公钥”经加密得到比特币地址，过程单向不可逆。
At the same time, the platform automatically generates key pairs with a set of " private keys " and " public keys ". Each bitcoin address corresponds to a " private key ", and if you want to use the bitcoin in your wallet, you must sign it with a " private key" called data encryption. The "private key" is randomly generated, the "public key" is obtained by specific algorithms, the "public key" is encrypted to a bitcoin address and the process is unreversible.
所有者通过“私匙”来支配、处分其比特币，可见“私钥”是司法控制比特币的关键。“私钥”可存储于网络环境下（如第三方交易平台），也可存于非网络环境下（如写在笔记本上）。
The owner disposes of and disposes ofs of its bitcoin through a “private key,” which is the key to judicial control of the bitcoin. A “private key” may be stored in a network environment (e.g. a third-party trading platform) or in a non-network environment (e.g. on a notebook).
理论上，执行法院可通过向第三方交易平台发协助执行通知和搜查被执行人住所对比特币采取控制。
In theory, the enforcement court may exercise control by issuing a notice of assistance to the third party trading platform and by searching the residence of the executed person in Bitcoin.
但实际上，交易平台多为海外企业且在境内无经营地址，被执行人下落不明，第三人占有等诸多不确定因素，导致执行法院无法对比特币采取有效的司法强制措施。
In practice, however, many of the trading platforms are offshore enterprises with no operating address in the country, the whereabouts of the executors are unknown, and the possession of third persons is a source of uncertainty that prevents the enforcement of effective judicial enforcement measures by the courts in relation to the currency.
三、比特币司法强制执行之路径探究
III. Path to judicial enforcement in Bitcoin
（一）比特币执行的法律依据
(i) Legal basis for Bitcoin enforcement
比特币强制执行中，应参照财产权法律规范。本案中，法院判决被执行人返还比特币，表现为财产返还，根据《民诉法司法解释》第四百九十五条第一款规定，他人持有法律文书指定交付的财物，法院责令其交付，拒不转交的，可强制执行。
In Bitcoin enforcement, reference should be made to the legal norm of property rights. In this case, the court ruled that the person who was executed should be returned to Bitcoin, in the form of the return of the property, which, according to article 495 (1) of the Judicial Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law, provides that a person who is in possession of the property designated for delivery by a legal instrument shall be ordered to deliver and, if he refuses to transmit it, enforceable.
同时，该条第二款规定若财物灭失的，参照本解释第四百九十四条规定处理，即物之交付请求权法律规范。故对比特币强制执行不存在法律上的障碍。
At the same time, paragraph 2 of the article provides that, in the event of loss of property, reference is made to the legal regulation of the right to claim delivery of the goods provided for in article 494 of the present interpretation. There is therefore no legal impediment to the enforcement of the Bitcoin.
（二）比特币执行返还交付
(ii) Bitcoin execution for delivery
比特币返还交付时，首要考虑被执行人是否有可供执行的比特币。下面结合实际情况，对法院采取的执行处置方案进行阐述。
When a bitcoin is returned to delivery, priority is given to whether the executed person has an enforceable bitcoin.
1、直接返还交付
Direct return to delivery
返还交付比特币时，被执行人拒不履行的，执行法院依法对其采取限制消费、纳入失信人员名单、罚款等强制措施；构成犯罪的，应移送公安机关处理。需注意的是，无证据显示被执行人无可供执行的比特币的和未在规定期限内作出不能返还说明的，均推定被执行人拒不履行。
In the case of return to Bitcoin, the person refused to do so, and the enforcement court, in accordance with the law, imposed such coercive measures as restrictions on consumption, inclusion in the list of persons who have lost faith, fines, etc., which constitute a crime, shall be transferred to the public security authorities. It should be noted that the refusal to do so is presumed if there is no evidence that the person has no enforceable bitcoin and if the person fails to provide a statement of his or her inability to return within the prescribed period.
2、购买返还交付
2. Purchase for return to delivery
本案中，被执行人已将比特币转移至案外人，无法直接返还申请执行人。此时，法院可参照《民诉法司法解释》第四百九十四条执行处置，需注意财产特定化的情形。
In the present case, where the executor had transferred Bitcoin to an outsider and was unable to return it directly to the applicant, the court could proceed with its disposition in the light of article 494 of the Judicial Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law, bearing in mind the circumstances in which the property was particularized.
所谓财产特定化，就是指财产是否具有可替代性，有以下两个判断标准：
There are two criteria for determining whether property is substitutable in the sense that it is specific to property:
1、主观价值判断，如情感附加等；
1. Subjective value judgements, such as emotional attachments;
2、客观实际标准，如孤品等。
Objective practical criteria, such as orphanhood.
比特币虽为虚拟财产，具有特殊性，但并非不可替代。其判断标准并非绝对唯一，最终需结合具体案情来判断。
Bitcoin is a virtual property, but it is not irreplaceable. Its criteria are not absolute, but ultimately need to be determined in the context of the particular case.
据此，参照《最高人民法院执行办公室关于判决交付的特定物灭失后如何折价问题的复函》规定，种类物灭失的情况，可责令被执行人购买同种标的物后进行偿还。
On this basis, and in the light of the reply of the Executive Office of the Supreme People's Court on the question of the price to be discounted after the loss of a particular object delivered to the Supreme People's Court, in the case of loss of the type of object, the person against whom the application is made may be ordered to purchase the same object for repayment.
我们认为此法不妥。“法律不强人所难”，我国虽不禁止持有比特币，但《关于防范比特币风险的通知》（2013年）、《关于防范代币发行融资风险的公告》（2017年）、《关于防范虚拟货币交易炒作风险的公告》（2021年）等文件明确我国全面禁止关于虚拟货币的相关业务。
We believe that this law is inappropriate. “The law is not difficult.” Although we do not prohibit the holding of bitcoin, documents such as the Notice on Protection against the Risk of Bitcoin (2013), the Proclamation on Protection against the Risk of Money Issue Financing (2017) and the Proclamation on Protection against the Risk of Virtual Currency Transactions (2021) make it clear that our country has a total ban on business related to virtual currency.
同时，基于善意文明理念的要求，执行法院应当采取合理、适当且不超出必要限度的强制措施。若要求被执行人购买比特币来返还，会损害社会公共利益，有违善意文明理念。
At the same time, the enforcement court should take reasonable, appropriate, and not exceed the necessary limits, as required by the concept of good-faith civilization.
（三）比特币执行折价赔偿
(iii) Bitcoin enforcement discounted compensation
1、意思自治原则
1. The principle of autonomy of meaning
基于意思自治原则，标的物毁损或灭失后，经双方同意，可折价赔偿。执行和解是当事人对自身民事权利再处分，本案中，比特币为第三人占有并已无法返还，经双方协商一致，将返还交付变更为金钱赔偿给付，系基于现实情况的考虑，应予以尊重。若被执行人未按执行和解履行，申请执行人可就此另行诉讼。
In this case, Bitcoin was in the possession of a third person and could not be returned, and, by mutual agreement, the return was converted to monetary compensation, which should be respected as a matter of fact. If the executor fails to comply with the enforcement settlement, the applicant may sue the executor separately.
2、折价赔偿机制的构建
II. CONSTRUCTION OF THE VALUATION MECHANISM
司法实践中，折价赔偿方式有客观计价和主观议价。
In judicial practice, discounted compensation is based on objective and subjective bargaining.
一般情况下采用客观计价，它基于标的物公允价值，并结合财产受损时市场价格、取得财产时的价格及双方对赔偿金的主张等综合判断。
In general, objective pricing is used, which is based on the fair value of the subject matter and is combined with the market price at the time the property is damaged, the price at the time the property is acquired and the parties' claims to compensation.
而《关于防范虚拟货币交易炒作风险的公告》（2021年）文件明确开展法定货币与虚拟货币兑换及虚拟货币之间的兑换业务、作为中央对手方买卖虚拟货币、为虚拟货币交易提供信息中介和定价服务、代币发行融资以及虚拟货币衍生品交易等相关交易活动，违反有关法律法规，并涉嫌非法集资、非法发行证券、非法发售代币票券等犯罪活动。
On the other hand, the circular (2021) on the prevention of exposure to virtual currency transactions explicitly deals in transactions related to the exchange of legal and virtual currency and virtual currency, the purchase and sale of virtual currency as a central counterparty, the provision of information intermediaries and pricing services for virtual currency transactions, the financing of currency issuances and the trading of virtual money derivatives, in violation of the relevant laws and regulations, and in connection with criminal activities such as the illegal collection of funds, the illegal issuance of securities and the illegal sale of coupons.
这意味着比特币无法采用客观计价，只能主观议价。
This means that Bitcoin is unable to use objective pricing and can only negotiate subjectively.
如何规范当事人议价呢？
How do
①合法、合理性审查
1 Legitimacy and reasonableness review
法院需对双方议价结果进行合法、合理性审查，防止出现不符合法律规定和极端不合理的价格的情形。如当事人以比特币交易平台上的交易收盘价及当日美元牌价作为赔偿金额，由于此类交易平台并不被我国认可，除双方一致同意外，一方当事人提出的，法院不予支持。
The court is required to conduct a legitimate and reasonable review of the outcome of the mutual bargaining in order to prevent the occurrence of non-compliance with the provisions of the law and of extremely unreasonable prices.
②程序正当
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
法律虽未对议价程序作出强制规定，可参照《最高人民法院关于人民法院确定财产处置参考价若干问题的规定》中关于议价程序的规定，且具备三个要素：
Although the law does not provide for compulsory bargaining procedures, reference may be made to the provisions of the Supreme People's Court's Rules on Certain Questions of the People's Court in Determining the Reference Price for the Disposal of Property, which contain three elements:
一是双方同意；
The first is the mutual consent of the parties;
二是特别告知（包括执行风险告知及议价规则），注意特别告知需载明比特币的特殊性及合法、合理性审查原则；
Second, special notification (including the implementation of risk notification and bargaining rules), paying attention to the need for special notification to set out the speciality of Bitcoin and the principles of legality and reasonableness;
三是当事人应在规定的时间内提交议价结果，未提交的，则议价结束。注意时间可双方协商，也可法院确定，一般三至五个工作日为宜，确保议价程序高效有序。
If the parties are to submit the results of the negotiations within a specified period of time, the negotiations are concluded if they are not.
③公平兼顾损益相当原则
3. Principle of fair balance of gains/losses
基于公平兼顾损益相当原则。本案中，申请执行人购买和出借比特币是同一天完成，且都与被执行人高度有关。
Based on the principle of fair balance of gains and losses. In this case, the applicant’s purchase and loan of bitcoin was completed on the same day and all were highly relevant to the person being executed.
因此，一方提出以出借时的购买价84,000元作为赔偿金额，另一方表示认可，遂后双方就此达成执行和解。倘若双方未达成一致，执行法院应终结执行，申请执行人可另行起诉。
As a result, one party offered compensation in the amount of $84,000 for the purchase price at the time of the loan, with the approval of the other party, after which the parties reached an enforcement settlement. In the absence of agreement between the parties, the enforcement court shall terminate the execution and the applicant may sue separately.
比特币等加密货币本是区块链技术的运用，然而却引发了金融乱象，给投资者带来了巨大的投资风险和法律风险。执行法院应立足于多元化纠纷解决机制，精准把握法律适用，才能更好地服务大局，有效化解矛盾，维护社会安定?。
An encrypted currency, such as Bitcoin, is an application of block-chain technology, but it has caused financial disruptions, posing huge investment and legal risks to investors. Enforcement courts should be based on a plurality of dispute resolution mechanisms, with precision in the application of the law, in order to better serve the larger picture, effectively resolve conflicts, and maintain social stability.
相关法条
related law
《中华人民共和国民法典》第127条
Article 127 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>的解释》第494条、第495条
Articles 494 and 495 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
第8期
?
?
案例参考册
周周有精彩
week has a wonderful week
聚焦精品案例? ? ?解读适法难点
focuses on the case? <
来源丨上海市高级人民法院、
From Shanghai City High People's Court,
上海市宝山区人民法院
Shanghai City Po Mountain People's Court
高院供稿部门：研究室
High Court contribution department: Research Office
案例撰写人：钱政骁
Case author: Quinquill.
责任编辑 | 邱悦、牛晨光
The editor of duty, Qui-Ying, the morning of the cow.
声明｜转载请注明来自“浦江天平”公众号
Please refer to the "Pujiang Tianping" public number.
?
为专业点个赞
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论