"Guo Ke Zhuang Wen" Brief Review of the Steaker Case: Why is the Acceptance of Pure U Investments the Most Important Judgment in Taiwan's Crypto World?

Crypto lawyer Lin Hongyu (fruit shell) commented on the Steaker virtual asset platform case, why the outcome of this case has far-reaching impact on Taiwan's cryptocurrency investment circle? (Synopsis: The Steaker case may be subject to constitutional interpretation!) Fruit Shell Lawyer: The "Most Important Verdict" Affecting Taiwan's Crypto Investment ) (Background supplement: Fruit Shell Special Article" Bitcoin Fixed Investment Experiment: 500 Days of Uninterrupted Results Disclosure) Since the advent of Bitcoin in 2009, cryptocurrencies have gradually moved from edge technology to mainstream applications, becoming a tool adopted by the general public and commercial institutions in physical commodity transactions, service exchanges and even asset allocation. Cryptocurrencies do expand the freedom of transactions due to their decentralization, global accessibility and high anonymity, but they also pose various legal difficulties due to their strong financial attributes, fast cross-border migration, and potential anonymity. STEAKER, a well-known digital asset management platform in China, launched and launched the USDT stablecoin investment plan to attract public investment, suspected of illegally absorbing about NT$1.48 billion, and the local prosecutor's office illegally operated the deposit receiving business in accordance with the Banking Law, suing Steaker, the person in charge and the core cadres. According to public information, the Steaker case only accepts stablecoin ( such as virtual assets )USDT and provides allocation income, and does not accept cash or remittances (fiat currency), nor does it provide exchange between fiat currency and stablecoins. The Steaker case has had a huge impact on Taiwan's technology startups and cryptocurrency industry, especially after the prosecution of this case, which may be the first time in history that the court has expressed its position on whether the "receipt of stablecoins alone (USDT) constitutes a major legal dispute under the Banking Law": Controversy over the application of the crime of illegal gold absorption in cryptocurrencies: ● Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Banking Law stipulates: "Unless otherwise provided by law, Non-banks are not allowed to engage in the receipt of deposits, the trusteeship of trust funds, public property or domestic foreign exchange business." The so-called "receipt of deposits", as defined in Article 5-1 of the Banking Act, is "the act of receiving money or absorbing funds from an unspecified majority of persons and agreeing to return the principal or pay an equal amount or higher than the principal". ● Article 29-1 of the Banking Act stipulates: "A person who receives money or absorbs funds from a majority or unspecified person in the name of borrowing, receiving investment, making a shareholder or otherwise, and agreeing to pay dividends, interest, dividends or other remuneration that is not commensurate with the principal, shall accept deposits." Anyone who violates Articles 29 and 29-1 of the Banking Act shall be guilty of illegally absorbing money under Article 125 of the Banking Act. Regarding whether cryptocurrencies ( whether bitcoin or stablecoins ) fall under the meaning of "funds" or "funds" under the Banking Law, and whether cryptocurrencies fall within the scope of punishment for the crime of illegal gold absorption, two completely opposite court opinions in the past can be seen in the following three indicative judgments: 1. Does not constitute illegal gold absorption (Taiwan High Court 107 Annuity Appeal Word No. 83 Judgment) The judgment held that bitcoin did not constitute a business under Article 3 of the Banking Law (which a bank may operate), so it was recognized that bitcoin was not a "money and funds" within the meaning of Article 29-1 of the Banking Law, and the court therefore held that virtual assets such as bitcoin are not businesses that banks can operate in accordance with the law, so they do not constitute the crime of illegal operation and acceptance of deposits (Article 125, Item 1 of the Banking Law). See comparison of two judgments in recent years 2. Constituting illegal gold absorption (Supreme Court 111 Taishang Zi No. 5556 Judgment and Supreme Court 112 Taishang Zi No. 317 Judgment) The two judgments seem to be contrary to the Taiwan High Court's 107 Annuity Appeal No. 83 opinion, creating the concept of "indirect capital flow", holding that the defendant's receipt of game tokens, virtual currency, etc., may be equivalent to receiving cash or remittance (legal currency ), so it still constitutes the crime of illegal gold absorption. But in fact the facts of the crime of the two verdicts: "... Interested investors, even if they do not hold Bitcoin, can participate in the investment by paying the investment funds in cash, or remitting the funds to a designated account". Bitcoin mining machines, investment funds are mostly delivered in cash", the facts of the two cases are not simply the receipt of virtual assets, but involve the absorption of legal tender, which seems to be different from the background facts of the Steaker case. Future Impact The Steaker case will have a drastic impact on Taiwan's technology startups, and a large number of business model compliance needs to be reassessed. At the same time, the court hearing the Steaker case must adopt one ( or another solution from two very different practical views. ) judgment, expressing a position on the major legal controversy over whether "receiving stablecoin (USDT) constitutes illegal gold absorption". In fact, in the past, there were other similar cases of this major legal controversy, and after the judgment was confirmed, they tried to appeal to the Constitutional Court (Principal Chancellor) to hear it (Constitutional Court Judgment No. 569 of 113 Judgment), but unfortunately the Chancellor did not express a position on this dispute, and ruled "inadmissible" on the basis of a declaration of illegality. In any case, whether the absorption of virtual assets constitutes a banking law will still present two different court opinions in the future, and will the Constitutional Court resolve the differences in court opinions? It is worth keeping track of it. Related Stories Coingecko Survey: Who is Investing in Crypto AI? The United States already knew who Satoshi Nakamoto was? Lawyer sues Department of Homeland Security to force government to disclose confidential bitcoin founder documents Ghibli's lawyer's warning letter "immediately stop AI imitation style" is fake! The high probability is also to change the picture "Fruit Shell Article" Brief Comment on the Steaker case: Why is accepting pure U investment the most important judgment in Taiwan's currency circle? This article was first published in BlockTempo's "Dynamic Trend - The Most Influential Blockchain News Media".