Retail investors sue cryptocurrency traders for unjust enrichment after liquidation; OTC trading is becoming increasingly difficult.

This is a typical case where a retail investor buys USDT from a cryptocurrency trader and, after suffering a liquidation, seeks to recover losses from the trader. For ease of identification, we will refer to the victim as Ding A (the deceived), the trader as Chen B, and the payee as Hu C.

Ding A was scammed in an investment scheme and purchased 48,000 USDT from the trader (Chen B) through an exchange, with the payment collected by Chen B's brother (Hu C).

Later, after failing in stock investments and facing liquidation, Ding A, unable to catch the scammer, followed the advice of unscrupulous lawyers and prepared to seek recovery from the trader, suing Chen B in court for unjust enrichment.

The trader contacted our team, and we devised a strategy: if you’re not satisfied, fight back. Unfortunately for this victim, who had already lost hundreds of thousands to telecom fraud, they are now being lured by unscrupulous lawyers to sue the trader, ultimately leading to another loss of a significant amount of money.

Let’s look at the grounds for the lawsuit: A transferred 48,000 to C for stock investment but claimed to have received no goods or services, asserting that there was no debtor-creditor relationship between them, and thus it constituted unjust enrichment.

A's transfer to C was for purchasing virtual currency for investment, but the opposing lawyer fabricated basic facts in the lawsuit, severely disrupting judicial order. Our team requests that A and A's lawyer be held accountable for false litigation.

What is unjust enrichment? This is something everyone can learn about; many lawyers misuse this law:

Article 985 of the Civil Code states, "If the beneficiary has obtained unjust benefits without legal basis, the person who has suffered losses may request the beneficiary to return the benefits obtained." It has four constitutive elements, which I won’t elaborate on here.

Returning to the case itself, the payee (Hu C) obtaining the 48,000 is not unjust enrichment; it is the consideration paid by A to B (the trader) for purchasing USDT, not the stock investment funds as claimed by A. C is merely collecting payment.

We had the trader provide evidence of their investment activities to prove that they have long been engaged in virtual currency trading, possessing the necessary professional and trading background, and can also demonstrate that there were multiple large transactions of USDT between the trader and A prior to this, with the 48,000 being just one of many transactions.

We also argue that A did not incur any losses in this transaction; the 48,000 used to buy USDT was indeed used to purchase USDT, but the USDT was used for investment on a platform. Whether the subsequent investment failed can only be regarded as a normal business investment activity.

In this case, the lawsuit arose from Ding A transferring 48,000 to Hu C. If categorized by type of unjust enrichment, this case should fall under the category of payment-type unjust enrichment.

In payment-type unjust enrichment cases, combined with the complaint submitted by Ding A and the evidence provided, including a 14-page screenshot of chat records labeled "XXXX," it can be confirmed that Ding A transferred 48,000 to Hu C for the purpose of earning investment returns. Furthermore, Ding A transferred the funds to Hu C's bank account following the instructions of their investment customer service "XXXX," which constitutes an instructed payment.

Therefore, Ding A's transfer of 48,000 to Hu C was for the purpose of earning investment returns and was made according to the investment platform's instructions. In summary, Ding A's transfer in this case was not lacking a payment purpose, and Hu C does not constitute unjust enrichment.

The above strategies are defensive; our team of lawyers is now going on the offensive:

We assert that the facts upon which the opposing lawyer bases the lawsuit are fabricated.

The opposing lawyer claims that the party did not know that investing in stocks required transferring funds from a bank to a securities company. However, according to the transaction records obtained by our lawyer, the opposing party transferred 15,000 to a legitimate securities company for proper stock investment, which contradicts common sense and clearly indicates the fabrication of facts. The true aim of the opposing lawyer is to attempt to recover losses from failed investments under the guise of unjust enrichment.

The opposing lawyer knew that the funds were for a transaction with the trader but did not list the trader as a defendant in the lawsuit, which is an attempt to confuse the issue. This led the court to order the opposing lawyer to explain the background and purpose of transferring 580,000 to the trader over the course of a year from 2020 to 2021.

In other words, this person continuously bought USDT from the trader for a year, and after failing in investments and facing liquidation, they come to trouble the trader. Where were they when they were making money?

The opposing lawyer stammered, and our team’s lawyer will pursue the opposing lawyer's criminal liability for false litigation.

Many cryptocurrency traders encounter such situations, and many OTC merchants are defenseless against them.

Our team can resolve basic legal issues in the cryptocurrency space, and our legal advisor, Uncle Liu, has a great reputation across major platforms. If you have legal issues, feel free to contact us for card unlocking, dual card penalties, judicial freezes on exchanges, etc.

Lawyers interested in joining the team can also message me privately.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。