Topic: Bitcoin in France: first legal decision directly related to Bitcoin? - page 12. (Read 63027 times)

Things are a bit complex than that.

In France there are laws ("droit au compte") that says that any company or individual should be able to open a bank account. When CIC first closed our bank account, strangely, no bank in France wanted to open a bank account for us anymore (especially when we reached the bitcoin part of the explanation).
We then went to the National Bank ("Banque de France") and asked them to assign us a bank. The first bank refused, so the National Bank re-assigned us to CIC, which was not allowed to say no anymore.

Thing is they said no. We opened an emergency court case as not having a bank account is harmful for our business, the court said that the bank was indeed required to act as the law says, and not as it feels. Bank lost court case, opened account, appealed, lost appeal, closed account, got sued again, lost again, re-opened account.

Now, the bank is saying that its only reason for closing the bank account is because we have an activity similar to a bank without being registered as a bank, since we allow people to buy a virtual currency called "bitcoin".
The definition of "virtual currency" under French law do not match bitcoin at all, and the court generally agrees, while saying it is not able to make this kind of decision. On request of both us and the bank, a regular court (as opposed to emergency court) will have to decide if bitcoin is indeed a virtual currency or not.

For information we haven't spent one cent so far on this (the bank has been required to pay us however, each time they lost). Unlike USA, in France the one who wins a court case is the one who is following the law, not the one with more money.

maybe we should just all chip in a donation fund for Mtgox legal representation and get MagicalTux the best representation money can buy... maybe even officially through mtgox's own website. I'm sure they have plenty of funds secured for adequate representation but why take chances

(im american, and here there is a saying "innocent until proven broke" , a jesting statement about how more often than not, whoever has the most money wins in court.)

Lastly, im left scratching my head here as to why MagicalTux is posting information on a pending legal matter on the internet. To my knowledge if you have any pending legal matters, you are not supposed to disclose information (ESPECIALLY NOT PUBLICLY!) And I would advise that because this case is so important to the future of bitcoin, its regulations and legality in general,

and that tux and mtgox stop posting information about whats going on in court. most notably his legal defense tactics...

Good luck Tux!  But get a second opinion.  If not from another attorney, you can find some wise old Japanese or French businessmen next time you're out at the club to ask this one question:  Is it a good idea to sue a bank I want to do further business with?

But aren't you better off just dropping the whole suit at this point?  You already won and the bank is flaunting the ruling, so you got the decision you wanted, nothing bad has happened for all bitcoin, and you can walk away.  I mean, why spend all this money on lawyers and risk a bad precedent when you could, instead:

1) switch banks
and/or
2) switch nationality of bank
and/or
3) switch nationality of M* S* LLC or whatever weirdly named LLC you use to transfer money around.  Others have suggested Panama, but there are many fine choices.  France is most definitely not an offshore or private banking mecca.

You will probably spend less money that way, to the right kind of lawyers: corporate, transactional, tax, asset protection.  Not the "LET's SUE YOUR FAVORITE BANK" kind of lawyer.  Also protects you from more lawsuits/getting milked by your "Let's sue your bank AGAIN and AGAIN!" lawyers down the line.

This is not legal advice, it is just common sense.  We aren't ready to slay Goliath just yet.  Better to keep things as low key as possible while the adoption rate grows and strengthens the currency.

Did you draw a pentagram on the floor before that incantation? I hope the spirits agree.

Firstly, IANAL, but I have a number of good friends who are lawyers.

It seems like Mr. MagicalTux doesn't have a good legal representation in the EU.

EU laws are all rooted in the Roman law. Roman law has already regulated bitcoin as a form of "depositum irregulare". The Roman law was actually about storing grains and other similar commodities. Meaning if you give a bushel of rye for safekeeping the holder of the deposit: (1) can use the deposited rye and (2) will return to you not the exact rye seeds that you deposited, but a bushel of rye seeds of the same kind. I believe the closest legal term in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is "fungible".

This is still a subject worth of discussion. But you have to be aware of the history. In Europe the "depositum irregulate" laws were used to tax Jews for their bogus transaction during jubilee years.

At the first glance I'd agree with you, but we need to be careful with what we wish for here. What are the implications?  If Bitcoins are not subject to any existing regulation because they are, essentially, nothing - then stealing someone's Bitcoins would not and should not be sanctioned in any way. In fact, it would be impossible to steal Bitcoins. I see more than a logical problem there, because I pay taxes, and I call the police if I am robbed. Most judges do too.

The fact is, most (but not all) of the opposition to regulation stems simply from not wanting to pay taxes to the government. Even most of the cries for anonymity boil down to this. This is fine, it's a matter of personal interest, preference, ideology, and the political system one lives in. I just wouldn't want Bitcoin to be abused and to fall victim of personal preferences and ideologies. If someone doesn't want to pay taxes, they should take it up with their government rather then try to seek shelter in Bitcoin. Bitcoin won't save them anyway, but it will suffer damage as a result. Similarly, MagicalTux should be careful with what he argues for in the court. What's good for his business in the short run may be detrimental to Bitcoin in the longer run.

Really want those clowns to proclaim it's a virtual currency

That would be epic  

As many have been talking about all kind of things let me add a few points.

• No, I am not doing this alone. I have people with me, some with deep understanding of bitcoin, some with deep understanding of french laws.
• I have a few years of experience running businesses, it's however my first time going in court for a system similar to bitcoin
• All the information published here (including the court decision) are public and published by the French tribunal too, since it's not "ongoing litigation" as someone said, but a closed case.
• Technically you do not own bitcoins, but you own keys to those coins, which have an intrinsic value equivalent to the controlled "coins". That makes stealing a wallet equivalent to stealing the coins. This has nothing to do with the defense anyway at this point, just thought I'd fuel a bit the troll.
• If anyone wants to help, it's welcome. If you could just avoid citing other countries laws, but EU regulations and/or French law it'd be even better.

.
Now, the bank claiming "bitcoin is a virtual currency" seems a bit far fetched, as they had no supporting material other than internet articles and similar things. The law defining a "virtual currency" in France is even more strict than the related EU regulation, and goes even further in a direction opposite to bitcoin.

Chances are the court will say "we never had to deal with Bitcoin before, we need new laws". We'll see how this goes.

Not only is this the best outcome but also, in my legal opinion and the legal opinion of several of my lawyer colleagues, the most likely outcome. BitCoin is not money, currency, virtual currency or stored value in either the US, France or any other jurisdiction we are aware of. For the most part for legal purposes BitCoin is undefined. Most people do not realize just how much legal protection this affords them.

BitCoin would most likely not be considered money or currency under US law. US law can be extremely broad in application because of the doctrine of stare decisis. French law is based on civil or continental law which is even more code based and thus likely to be less broad in application.

There will need to be legislation written to define BitCoins but, at least in the US, this will be almost impossible to do if it is to pass Constitutional muster given doctrines such as void for vagueness under due process in contrast to ignorantia juris non excusat.

There is a bet created on the court rule:
http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=89

I thought you might be interested

The right to make war is what separates sovereigns from petitioners and peasants. Sovereigns rule by mandate. Mandate is lost when the people lose faith. Just sayin'.

again: There is no such thing as bitcoin, it doesn't exist. There is Bitcoin Network, Bitcoin Blockchain and Bitcoin Transaction, but bitcoin it self is nothing, zero, NOT DEFINED. When you transfer one bitcoin, you only send the message that one bitcoin was transfered, but it doesn't say anything about what bitcoin is. Same thing with blockchain it only stores transaction history.

I agree.

I think the closest thing bitcoins can be compared to is rare collectible objects, traded by people, since there are a known limited number of them (21M).

I think the best outcome would be, if the court rules that bitcoin is not subject of any existing regulation and therefore we can do whatever we want with it.

Please France say Bitcoin is a virtual currency 

I am not qualified to judge what outcome would be best for Bitcoin.  Perhaps it's best to ask ourselves what outcome would be most desirable for those who oppose it?

There are prior examples of informal opinions from the government agencies - here is one:


source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028155.600-future-of-money-virtual-cash-gets-real.html

The monopoly that the banks have is totally against capitalism and the free enterprise system. Why aren't you bitching about that? What other recourse does he have than to force them not to lock him out?
When you benefit from a government granted monopoly, you give up the right to pick and choose who you do business with.

Very interesting.

I wonder what would happen to mining Bitcoin. Would it be illegal if Bitcoin was money? In some places yes.

However Bitcoin is not money, if bitcoin is money than it will also mean that it would be illegal to print limited edition art, since those could also be traded. It would mean that anything that is in limited edition would be illegal since it can be sold and bought/exchanged for money.

Even comicbooks are traded. Are secondhand comicbook shops illegal?

 

for your information: in french by the responsable of macaraja society :

go to see all information with judgement in pdf

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/une-societe-defend-les-bitcoins-face-a-une-banque-le-cic-41391