Plaintiff’s Position:
On 08/03/2018, a trust management agreement was orally concluded between the parties, under the terms of which P. transferred 16.6 BTC to T., for a period until 12/31/2018. The plaintiff transferred the cryptocurrency to the defendant in order to receive profit during the trust management, for which he undertook to pay the defendant a reward in the form of 20% of the profit. P. also gave T. 103 DASH and 31.98 ETHEREUM.
During the meeting between the parties on December 27, 2018, the defendant informed the plaintiff that the transferred property was lost and could not be returned by the date agreed by the parties Cryptocurrency.
Subsequently, as the plaintiff points out, part of the cryptocurrency units was returned to him by the defendant, including during the period of consideration of the case by the court, but the remaining part – 11.1 BITCOIN cryptocurrency units; 76,975 units of ETHEREUM cryptocurrency; 88.52 units of the DASH cryptocurrency have not been returned to date, which was the basis for filing claims with the court, and the plaintiff insists on claiming it Cryptocurrency.
Respondent position:
P. asked T. to help him in order not to lose the value of the acquired cryptocurrency, taking into account its depreciation and instability in the market. He did not enter into any contractual relations, including relations on concluding a trust management agreement with P., did not assume obligations to make a profit, nor did he assume obligations for maintaining the volume of cryptocurrency as a result of trading with it.
Court position:
- The plaintiff, when deciding to transfer the cryptocurrency to the defendant, acted at his own peril and risk, since he could not receive any guarantees. The risks of reducing the value of the cryptocurrency, its quantity when trading on the market is borne solely by the plaintiff himself.
The Respondent only made a decision, at the request of the Claimant, to help the latter with his cryptocurrency investment experiment, in which the Claimant chose to participate by acquiring Cryptocurrency, and the prospect of receiving a reward was possible only if successful.
The defendant, at the request of the plaintiff, provided him with reports on the ongoing auction. However, the above, in any case, does not indicate the existence between the parties of any contractual obligations of a compensatory nature.
- There is no evidence that the parties actually concluded an agreement on trust management of the property. The arguments of the plaintiff on the conclusion of such an agreement orally are not accepted by the court. The trust management agreement could be concluded by the parties on the terms declared by the plaintiff only in writing, with the definition of its essential terms Cryptocurrency.
- The claims of persons related to the possession of digital currency are subject to judicial protection only if they inform about the facts of possession of digital currency and transactions or operations with digital currency in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees. Plaintiff took no such action.
