Topic: Bitcoin in France: first legal decision directly related to Bitcoin? - page 6. (Read 63027 times)

What's amusing is that the "Learn more about Bitcoins here" link on the MtGox website goes straight to Bitcoin.org where Bitcoin is indeed described as both money and a digital currency.

Does this mean we'll wait 4 more weeks? Was anyone present at that hearing? Magicaltux?

Translated on Google:

After discussion, no judge rapporteur will be appointed.

The case will be heard directly in open court judges (three judges) October 18, 2011 at 10:00 am at the Tribunal de Commerce de Créteil (Pascal building accessible from the shopping mall parking lot "Créteil Soleil").

The decision will come later, usually about four weeks (the drafting of the act of justice takes time).

Is it me or they keep postponing any decision?

Don't expect anything to happen before Oct. 18th:

Monthly bump. Any news?

The case will be heard directly in open court judges (three judges) October 18, 2011 at 10:00 am at the Tribunal de Commerce de Créteil (Pascal building accessible from the shopping mall parking lot "Créteil Soleil".)

Original August 11, 2011 Municipal Court Decision:
http://creperso.free.fr/CIC/Ordonnance_de_refere_du_11_aout_2011.pdf

Francis Faulhaber (the manager of the MACARAJA SAS french entity) requests that the CIC bank :
 - re-opens their bank account based on the right for every French entity or individual to benefit from a bank account with the basic financial services being and remaining free of charge, except if the account balance goes negative
 - pays a 2000 € daily amount to MACARAJA SAS until the account is re-opened
 - pays all legal fees and charges involved with MACARAJA SAS challenging the account cancellation
 - pays 32 000 € damages to MACARAJA SAS
 - pays 3000 € compensation to MACARAJA SAS
 - pays the justice fees

MSAS outlines that the CIC wrote them on may 10th to inform them that their account would be cancelled on july 15th. MSAS did not find another bank willing to open an account in the meantime, therefore the Banque de France informed the CIC on july 22 that it had been designated to be MSAS's bank and that it was to make a bank account available.

MSAS argues that the CIC bank is in possession of all the required documentation and gives the CIC the commerce intermediary contract (between MSAS and Tibanne).

The CIC argues that the bank account was closed because it suspected that the account was used to perform activites that are illegal under french law : unlicensed financial operations ("commerce de l'argent") that are reserved to licensed and audited professionnals. The CIC requests that MSAS be denied all its requests.


The ruling states :

That the bank account cancellation arose from a difference of interpretation of MSAS's activity, MSAS's arguing to be a commerce intermediary and the CIC arguing that it was in fact conducting operations that require a proper financial license.

That it is not in the emergency court's competence to rule on the nature of MSAS's activity.

That the instruction from the Banque de France is to be respected and that a subsequent ruling can be requested to actually analyze MSAS's activity nature.

That the CIC got the commerce intermediary contract between MSAS and Tibanne with its AML additional conditions, signed on may 28th (!)

That the CIC shall be responsible of paying the daily amount of 500 € until the account is opened.

That all MSAS's requests are denied.

So, what happened guys ?

I won't argue strongly against you, but your analogy is not entire parallel. The key pairs are not the bitcoins. The transactions are not the bitcoins. Bitcoins are an idea by consensus. What we are signing is "I send 50 bitcoins". I can say "I send you a postcard" but those are only words. The postcard might exist. The bitcoins don't. On the other hand, law seems to accept "intellectual property" as a thing with defensible and transferable ownership. I happen to disagree.

To me, it's a bit like playing tea with the stuffed animals. I can claim to pour some tea into your cup, and you can accept that I've done that, but it's all just imaginary.

EDIT: "legally binding contract" - ah yeah, OK. I hear what you are saying. But I don't think the bitcoins are the contract. The contract is "I promise to perform a series of actions that will result in a network agreeing to verify that I've performed those actions, in exchange for your pogs". If you deliver the pogs and I fail to perform the actions, then I'm acting fraudulently. I still hold that bitcoins don't exist any more than a blown kiss, whether signed or not.

I was just stating the argument as I understood it. The argument likely relies on some law meaning that bitcoin its not a recognized currency.

edit: My position is that it is legal...just not legal tender.

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an "obligation[] of the United States" that may be "redeemed in lawful money on demand." 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not "money" per se but promissory notes supported by the monetary reserves of the United States.