Chengdu Court released the top ten typical cases of the year, two of which involved virtual currency fundraising fraud and "mining machine" sales contract disputes.

PANews reported on January 11 that the Chengdu Court released the top ten typical cases of 2024, revealing a case of fund-raising fraud and money laundering involving the "GUCS" virtual currency and the associated software "Wa11et Pro" APP. The virtual currency was publicly traded on two exchanges in April and June 2020. The defendant Wang and others vigorously promoted the economic value and investment prospects of GUCS coins in Chengdu, Deyang, Meishan and other places, and developed downlines in the form of recruiting people, causing more than 29,000 fund-raising participants to lose a total of more than 1.7 billion yuan. Wang was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life, and confiscated all personal property.

In addition, the Chengdu Court also disclosed a case of a Singaporean company suing a Sichuan real estate company for a "mining machine" sales contract dispute. In April 2021, a Sichuan real estate company issued a "Proforma Invoice", stipulating that a Singaporean company would purchase 50 "A10 720" processors (i.e., virtual currency Ethereum "mining machines") from it at a unit price of US$22,000, and the delivery terms were FOB. After the Singaporean company paid US$1.1 million, the Sichuan real estate company only delivered 12 units, and the contract was not fulfilled. In January 2022, the two parties negotiated to change the contract, and the Sichuan real estate company issued a "Proforma Invoice" again, and the Singaporean company paid a total of US$22,534 in freight and insurance premiums to continue to buy and sell the remaining 38 mining machines. Later, the Sichuan real estate company still did not deliver the goods, so the Singaporean company sued the court, requesting to terminate the sales contract relationship of the 38 "mining machines" that had not been delivered, and return the corresponding payment, freight, insurance premiums and interest losses on capital occupation totaling US$965,205.56. The final judgment was that a Sichuan real estate company should refund the payment of US$836,000 and freight and insurance premiums of US$22,534 that a Singaporean company had paid, and the other claims of the Singaporean company were dismissed.