back to article Bitcoin can't be owned, says Japanese court, as Karpeles sweats in cell

A man seeking repayment for Bitcoin lost in the Mt Gox incident has seen his lawsuit dismissed in a Tokyo District Court, with the judge ruling that the gumblecash is "not subject to ownership" claims. A resident of Kyoto, the plaintiff has stated that he had 458 Bitcoin, contentiously valued at about ¥31m (£160,000), which …

  1. Mage Silver badge
    Coat

    Ah ...

    So it's just a virtual thing used for speculation and money laundering?

    1. nilfs2
      Meh

      Re: Ah ...

      Just like any other currency in the world.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hey judge!, Why is Karpeles being held then?

    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
      Joke

      Illegally trading unicorns.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Facepalm

        Care to explain how one would trade unicorns within the law?

        1. Fink-Nottle
          Trollface

          > Care to explain how one would trade unicorns within the law?

          Easy ... just don't break any laws when you're buying and selling unicorns.

  3. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Presumably if it can't be owned

    it can't be taxed.

    Sounds like a result.

    Or will this become another irregular noun ?

  4. splodge

    Digital piracy is not legally possible in Japan, then?

    1. DavCrav

      "Digital piracy is not legally possible in Japan, then?"

      No, copyright infringement is not theft. Therefore cannot be pursued as theft of goods. You might try copyright infringement on the ownership of the Bitcoin, since it is a number, and this stands more chance than theft.

      1. Robert Helpmann??
        Childcatcher

        Not Copyright Infringement

        So how do they deal with other forms of crime involving digital assets? Most money transfers these days do not involve physical assets. Likewise with high frequency trading in various stock markets. Under this ruling, if I hacked into the Nikkei or a local bank and skimmed some virtual assets, it wouldn't be theft, would it? This sounds like the quote was taken out of context given that these sorts of things would presumably already be covered under Japanese law. Perhaps these actions are better covered as fraud. Of course, it is also possible that this ruling might be overturned on appeal.

    2. David Webb

      Digital Media does exist in a tangible form, you can see it (video/image) or hear it (video/music file), a digital currency is basically someone saying "okay, you have this magic thing now, and it's worth MONEY!".

      1. Goldmember

        Er, you should probably look up the word 'tangible'...

  5. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Japanese banks are going to be so happy !

    Now they can just steal everyone's money from their bank accounts because it's "not tangible"...

    1. DavCrav

      Re: Japanese banks are going to be so happy !

      "Now they can just steal everyone's money from their bank accounts because it's "not tangible"..."

      Right, right. Bitcoin is either a currency or it is not. If it is a currency then it must be subject to all the standard restrictions that currency transactions face, and then you can sue for theft. If it is not a currency, then you are on your own.

      Bitcoin enthusiasts/pump-and-dumpers want the Wild West with regards taxes and regulation, but when things go wrong they go running crying to their government to put it right. Maybe he should have spent some Bitcoin on the book Quantum cake: a guide to having and eating.

    2. Andy The Hat Silver badge

      Re: Japanese banks are going to be so happy !

      "Now they can just steal everyone's money from their bank accounts because it's "not tangible"..."

      That's a good point. Unless you're on the gold standard with some kind of physical reference, no currency in banks is tangible it's not cash in a vault, just digital data. In addition, since banks do not have the assets to 'pay (all) bearer on demand ...' the content of your account is by definition intangible.

      So the bank lost our money ...

      "Dear Mr Loser,

      Oops, sorry, byeeee.

      Yours,

      Intangible asset manager."

      1. Grikath

        Re: Japanese banks are going to be so happy !

        well yeah.. This is exactly what happens when a bank fails...

        1. TheOtherHobbes

          Re: Japanese banks are going to be so happy !

          Aaaaaand... it's gone.

      2. chivo243 Silver badge
        Headmaster

        Re: Japanese banks are going to be so happy !

        yes, there is way more money on the books than is minted/pressed/printed. Can there be a run on the bank holding virty cash? Sounds like the judge's judgement isn't so sound.

      3. jonathanb Silver badge

        Re: Japanese banks are going to be so happy !

        A bank account is a loan of money to the bank, which they owe back to you. Can you steal a loan?

  6. Neal Palmquist

    Is it or isn't it?

    I wish it could be settled one way or the other and it would be nice if both sides of the debate will finally settle the matter. Is Bitcon a Fonzi Scheme or not???

    1. Martin Gregorie

      Re: Is it or isn't it?

      Fonzi Scheme ? definitely not!

      Ponzi Scheme? possibly.

      1. jamesb2147

        Re: Is it or isn't it?

        I'd assumed that was intentional.

      2. Jesus45

        Re: Is it or isn't it?

        Mtgox was operating a fractional reserve bitcoin banking, at the same time that it was being robbed blind.

        Think of it as a bank that was hacked by some user and they started to empty the atms, in this case the banknotes were the "real bitcoins" and what Mtgox has left are bitcoin promises.

      3. Captain DaFt

        Re: Is it or isn't it?

        "Fonzi Scheme ? definitely not!

        Ponzi Scheme? possibly."

        So you're saying it hasn't jumped the shark yet?

        1. chivo243 Silver badge

          Re: Is it or isn't it?

          heeey! They just want the shark fin...

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Perhaps a better comparison... Reputation

    An individual's reputation is even more intangible than bitcoin. One could use $160,000 worth of bitcoin to buy a nice car, where a reputation is obviously far less tangible.

    So, by the judge's own logic, I could point out that he's a complete daft idiot and there's no harm, no foul, nothing he could complain about.

  8. Mike007 Bronze badge

    "because transactions between users are structured in such a way that calls for the involvement of a third party".

    If he wants to try and rule based on technicalities of how the system works, he should probably get several people experienced in understanding complex network protocols to analyse both the banking system and the bitcoin transaction mechanisms and come to a consensus on the similarities and differences first.

    For example is this is a reference to the fact that a transfer is verified by publishing a cryptographic verification to a distributed log as it reads to me then I think he'll find that bank transfers are verified by publishing them to a third party "clearing house" database. A fraudulent bank transfer is actionable in court last I checked.

    1. jonathanb Silver badge

      Yes, but you probably wouldn't be charged with theft. There are other offences that cover it.

  9. Paul Johnson 1

    What this really means

    Talk about Japanese Whispers! This has been summarised, translated, interpreted; its a wonder there is anything left.

    If a laundry went bust, it would owe money to its creditors and also would have a load of clothes that had been left for washing. The point of the "tangible asset" law is just that the clothes can be reclaimed by their individual owners, while any money goes into a common pot. So someone who has left a load of dirty laundry gets their clothes back, but the bank can't use the same logic to say "the money we lent them last week is ours, so we should get it back".

    The court in this case has said that Bitcoins are more like money than clothes; the plaintiff in this case was arguing that he had deposited a load of Bitcoins at MtGox, so he should get those Bitcoins back, exactly like clothes left at a bankrupt laundry. The court has decided that Bitcoins are more like money than clothes, so his argument doesn't work. That is all.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: What this really means

      Must you inject facts into our stupidity?

  10. Mr Dogshit

    Pretend money is pretend

    There's a surprise.

    Did you know you can't spend Monopoly money in shops? Or them plastic coins from the Early Learning Centre?

    1. Scubaman66

      Re: Pretend money is pretend

      As any form of currency is only worth what its mutually agreed value is (whether it be paper, precious metal, shells, stones, animals or a series of algorithmic derived numbers) the only difference between Bitcoins and say US Dollars (substitue Sterling, Euro, Yen, etc) is the level of acceptance. The only real difference between a 'standard backed' currency and a 'fiat' currency is the notional value of what the currency is denominated against.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So who exactly was he suing for the return of his cash?

    was he expecting the state to return his gambling losses like the Names of Lloyds or was he attempting to extract cash from Mark Karpeles?

    Pesumably Mt Gox is bankrupt and since all the real money has gone where does the guy expect the money to come from?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like