The contract and the award
The dispute arose from an agreement involving a company share transfer and the return of cryptoassets previously entrusted to Gao Zheyu for management. The tribunal treated non-return as a contractual breach and used price information from okcoin.com to quantify loss. Alongside the share transfer and other monetary claims, it awarded Li Bin USD 401,780, convertible into renminbi at the award-date exchange rate. Gao applied to set aside the award.
Why the court intervened
The court considered the chosen compensation to provide indirect support for exchanging bitcoin into legal tender. It referred to Chinese regulatory restrictions reflected in the 2013 bitcoin-risk notice and the 2017 announcement concerning token-issuance financing. The monetary structure circumvented those restrictions and offended social public interest. The judicial review proceeded under Article 58 of the then applicable PRC Arbitration Law.
Disposition and the source’s status
On 26 April 2020, in case (2018) 粤03民特719, the court set aside Shenzhen Arbitration Commission award (2018) 深仲裁字第64号 in its entirety. The Supreme People’s Court subsequently included it as Guiding Case 199, published in December 2022. The ruling date must be distinguished from publication of the guiding account.
What the case leaves open
The account does not declare every cryptoasset dispute non-arbitrable. Nor does it establish that an order to return cryptocurrency in kind would necessarily be permissible: that remains a separate research question. For a comparison of remedies, contrast Blockstream, where a BTC-based monetary calculation arose from mining equipment and was reviewed in a different jurisdiction.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.