加密货币与皇冠足彩案件

皇冠足彩 cases with cryptocurrencies have undoubtably been adjudicated by now. However, written appellate opinions are still sparse at this time in Guilford County 和 beyond. 但越来越多的美国人正在投资加密货币, 和 we should begin seeing more complex cases being published shortly. 下面是两个例子, 一个来自加利福尼亚，另一个来自华盛顿, 夫妻共同财产司法管辖区. One case involves a spouse hiding cryptocurrency during a divorce 和 the other case involves dividing Bitcoins in a divorce.

刘超诉. 张俊辉(华盛顿州. 应用程序. 2020):

Plaintiff wife 和 Defendant Husb和 were in a proceeding for division of their property in 2017. Mother introduced a screenshot of Husb和’s Bitcoin wallet showed that Husb和 owned 53.21个比特币，价值504,766美元. Husb和 testified that he had sold all those Bitcoins in 2015 to support himself. But he also produced account information a month before trial that evidenced his ownership of the 53+ Bitcoins.

The trial court ultimately did not find Husb和’s testimony credible; notably, even allowing Husb和 to bring his computer to court to show the current wallet balance, 哪个丈夫没做. The court valued the Bitcoin 和 distributed that value to Husb和, 和 he appealed. This was reviewed under an abuse of discretion st和ard, 鉴于庭审记录, 没有发现虐待行为.

The interesting part of this was that the trial court had written in their order that due to the nature of cryptocurrency, it was difficult for anyone but the owner of Bitcoin to establish how many Bitcoins were owned 和 at what time 和 what value.

This case’s result was only because Husb和 was unable to prove that he did not have Bitcoin. It perhaps signaled that more extensive discovery may be needed to determine ownership. 比特币本身只是伪匿名的, 通过一些法医调查, 可以确定比特币的所有者. 如前一段所述, if you suspect or find evidence that your spouse has secret cryptos, it may be worthwhile to delve deeper to determine the extent of ownership 和 an accurate value.

Desouza v. 《皇冠足彩》，公元54年.应用程序.5月25日，266 Cal.Rptr.3d 890 (Cal. 应用程序. 2020)

2013年1月, 原告妻子提起皇冠足彩诉讼, 和 is granted an “automatic temporary restraining order that . . . 禁止他调任, 阻碍人的, 抵押, 隐瞒, 或以任何方式处置任何财产, 真实的还是个人的, 是否社区, quasi-community, 或单独的, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life.”

However, Husb和 then goes on to make multiple purchases of Bitcoin through his friends. 他们在山上举行. 气态氧帐户. 他总共买了1062张.21个比特币，144,391美元. In 2017, 当事人财产案开庭审理, 和 a judgment was entered that ordered Husb和 to divide his Bitcoins evenly. 2013年至2017年期间，Mt. Gox suffered a hack, legal issues, 和 was forced to declare bankruptcy. 因此，丈夫只拥有613英镑.他总共有53个比特币. However, this only came to light after the entry of the judgment. Wife then moved for post-judgment relief seeking immediate transfer of her interest in the Bitcoin, 以及加州法律规定的进一步补救措施. The trial court eventually also ordered Husb和 to transfer a further 249.445 Bitcoins, 和 $22,500 in cash to Wife, 和 awarded attorney’s fees. 丈夫上诉.

在上诉, the Court held that in 隐瞒 these Bitcoin transactions had violated a fiduciary duty that California imposes of married couples, 即使分开了也要继续. The fact that Wife did not know that a portion of the Bitcoin was tied up by Mt. Gox’s bankruptcy 和 legal woes was a material omission. If Wife had known, she may have objected to an in-kind division of the Bitcoin. Had she known about Husb和’s decision to purchase in the first place, she could have motioned to enjoin Husb和 from the initial purchase. The fact that Wife benefitted from his unilateral decision to purchase Bitcoin (the value had skyrocketed, 投资价值数百万美元), 不能成为丈夫行为的借口吗. 初审法院的命令得到了维持.

The cases both illustrate some of the difficulties associated with crypto in divorce. Namely, identification of existence, ownership, 和 value. It also brings up a practical consideration for distribution of property: in-kind distribution, 或者分配奖励? The need for accurate accounting of crypto is apparent, but thankfully it seems like discovery tools are catching up with the technology. Our divorce lawyers in 皇冠足彩网 have expertise in the emerging field of cryptocurrency 和 can advise you in this process.