Bitcoin Forum

Found an interesting article today coming from Spain, it says that someone contracted a debt with another private party, it was a simple two-guy debt setting without a legal agreement other than Whatsapp messages. "I need X amount of money, I will pay you back". The creditor accepted and so sent 0.58 BTC to this guy which eventually refused to pay back. What's interesting is that for the first time ever the judge said the debt plus interest must be paid back in Bitcoin, not the fiat currency (EUR in Spain). Due counterparty risk, he will have to pay more since by the time the agreement happened the price of Bitcoin was cheaper, specifically, 14.000€ at current rate, 5.900€ back then. It's one of those things, you may take advantage of the fluctuating price or you may have to pay more. At the end of the day this is positive for BTC since it is being considered as a viable way to settle debts between private parties by authorities, which always translates into better regulation and in general being looked like less of a dodgy guy when you liquidate it into a bank deposit.

Source: https://es.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/juzgado-en-espana-ordena-devolucion-de-prestamo-en-bitcoin-no-en-euros-2401286

not really a precedent

its much the same as
"this guy stole my lawnmower"
judge: "give him back his lawnmower"

not all compensations/debts/thefts/frauds or orders to honour loans/agreements/returns need to be honoured in fiat

but still. atleast it shows that spanish judges accept bitcoin as a item of value that needs to be returned as is in the same condition as it was taken(plus extra for inconvenience caused). rather than some judges just dismissing cases thinking its two kids fighting over monopoly money

Yeah but this is a monetary settlement with an agreed interest rate, a lawnmower being stolen would return you the lawnmower plus a compensation for any damages caused and a fee for the theft. Here Bitcoin was respected as a valid way of money with his own market value and indeed not forced to liquidate the debt in fiat as if it was monopoley money in the eyes of the state, so overall is a positive. It is mentioned that at least in Spain this hasn't happened before.

This is because bitcoin and cryptocurrency entirely isn’t banned or strictly regulated like the other countries. Although it cannot be use as legal tender which is the Euro or use as an international transaction currency. But the individual payment if agreed between two people is not frowned upon. So base on the law it was logical to have the debtor pay back in bitcoin.

The sweetness in this is a bitcoin stays the same and doesn’t devalue like the fiat currency. And the use of it for loan repayment can solve many problems associated with fiat

Not surprising because the debt is in Bitcoin and not in Euro. Judge usually want to settle what’s the original debt. It’s like a debt in USD should be paid on USD not in Euro. The judge doesn’t consider the converted value because it’s a debt and not an investment.

I will be surprised if the judge will settle this in Euro despite the debt is on Bitcoin. The good news on this article was judge already considering Bitcoin as valuable asset since they are honoring its value.

return a petrol lawnmower + a full tank of petrol would be the court order(extra petrol being the interest)..
rather than converting the loss as a euro amount of how much the lawnmower was worth at the time of the swap

many court cases have seen the scammer/thief have to give back exactly what was taken.
its only in things like bankruptcy/tax evasion where most assets are converted to a fiat value and needed to be repaid in fiat. or where the thief that took an item, sold the item, no longer has the item and unable to return the item. are they then made to compensate in fiat.
but if they still have the item or can buy back the item from where they sold it. then that item can be returned in as best complete condition or better than when they took it

on the flip side there have been cases that did not even make it into a court room becasue some judges in different countries in the past just dismissed the case as wasting the courts time by thinking the case was about some silly game that should be resolved amungst themselves and not worth the courts time arbitraging the disagreement(the judge didnt believe the claimed loss was of real value to meet the standard of minimum loss value to proceed in court)

The judge must have believed that it would be preferable if the debt in bitcoin were resolved in bitcoin since it would be more formal and appropriate and since there is no law prohibiting the adoption of cryptocurrency. It's encouraging to see that certain locations are now accepting bitcoin. gradually, in the years to come, the tale of bitcoin will change. It will be challenging for certain regions to accept bitcoin as legal tender, but I am certain some will.

Glad to know that the Judge sees Bitcoin as an asset. Fixed assets like lands, gold, and Bitcoins fluctuate the price over time. Like other assets, they have to return the asset, not the value. In case it's a thing that cannot be purchased anymore, they should pay according to the current market rate.

There might be some items that cannot be bought back anymore. As I said above, I won't say it's a bad decision even if the Judge ruled them to pay in Euro According to the current market price. It's nice to know that the Judge understands that Bitcoin is a valuable asset which has the potential to grow much more.

A similar situation is happening in Brazil , where a big exchange stole 2000 bitcoin from customers in 2013.

The value of the debt now is over millions of usd, and there is a discussions if the debt should be paid in fiat or btc.

https://www.infomoney.com.br/onde-investir/mercado-bitcoin-e-condenado-a-pagar-r-300-milhoes-a-cliente-em-caso-de-golpe-envolvendo-ex-socio/

This is simply a case of you I lend you in bitcoin, you repay your loan in bitcoin. Nothing else. This is justice. It would have been very unfair or unjust if the lender was required by the court to accept their loan repayment in Euros. The debtor probably converted the bitcoins to Euros and wanted to play smart.

Other the other hand what does this judgement tells us: Bitcoin is being recognized and soon enough we would have it being discussed in the law schools and even see concrete laws passed on it that pertains to individual possession, lending, and repaying.

This cannot be considered unique. I mean, suppose you take 2 goats on loan, and in return you will also have to return the 2 goats with interest. Similar concepts are used here. The quantity of the good that is borrowed needs to be equivalently returned in the same goods only. This is followed by each and every judge, as we can see in the general area. Moreover, we can understand the pain of the borrower, but that’s how things work to be fair. If the lender had not lent the bitcoins, he would have that many bitcoins currently with him at the current price. So I guess the judge made a fair decision here.

But for the fact after he stole the lawnmower and lost it over the years and now he has to buy a new one for him at 300% price.

Jokes aside, it's kinda cool to see the judge supporting the usage of bitcoin and not considering the fiat price of it.

I think it makes total sense, since the deal between both parties was settled in BTC currency, so the debtor has to to pay back in Bitcoin. It would be unfair for the victim to receive money back in fiat currency, because then he would be the prejudiced one due to the BTC's fluctuations so far.

To pay back in BTC means the victim is being reimbursed for all potential profits he could have made if holding those Bitcoins on his wallets since that time, when BTC was pricing about 5900€, against the currently 14,000€, as OP says.

Totally accurate sentence by the judge! Congratulations!

The issue was that the debtor wants to pay part of the debt in fiat money but the creditor refused because he wants his money in Bitcoin. This judgment was triggered by the fact that bitcoin is recognized as a currency in  Spain. And the judge in his wisdom ruled that the debt should be paid with the agreed currency.

I wonder what will happen if such a disagreement happens in Mainland China. Both parties will just keep silent or settle the matter between themselves and the creditor would have been cheated. This is because exposing such a case might lead to confiscation of the funds or even imprisonment. The court acted wisely and such news can lead to bitcoin awareness because people will appreciate the fact that bitcoin is also backed by the law.

I do not like to take legal rulings in a kind of generalization, so unless you know the details of the case and why the judge ruled that, you may end up doing something illegal that you think is legal and vice versa..What is legally acceptable in this case may not be suitable for all subsequent legal cases in the same country, let alone in different countries of the world.
Your way of narration suggests that bitcoin is acceptable as a medium for trading, but the same thing may apply to commodities. If you borrow a certain commodity from a person, it may not be enough to return the value of the same commodity in dollars, but rather the same commodity, whatever its price.

Let us consider this Spanish legal case with the gravity and critical lens it merits. Here we have an unorthodox contract formed on the shifting sands of a Whatsapp conversation, predicated on the exchange of 0.58 BTC, a sum not inconsequential in today's market. Indeed, the central thrust of this tale pivots on the court's verdict, mandating the repayment in Bitcoin, a precedent-setting move in the otherwise Euros-tied legal landscape of Spain. This development suggests a shift in perception of BTC from an obscure asset into a legitimate currency. However, let us not rush into celebrating this as a victory for the crypto community. The ruling merely applies the principle of restitution to its logical conclusion, as per the original agreement. It's less of a step towards broader regulation, as some might infer, and more of a rather specific legal interpretation. I would urge you to take this news with a pinch of salt.

That’s interesting & probably the way it should be going forward. I’m sure the MtGox claimants would like that to be the case in their situation. Sadly it won’t though.

In this scenario though, the guy borrowed in bitcoin so he should pay back in bitcoin. Sucks for him that the price has gone up significantly (relevant to € plus interest) since the loan though.

It's cool that WhatsApp messages were accepted by court as evidence and even as legally binding. It's kind of surprising to me because I think in my country legal binding only happens when a contract is signed, so promises to pay back in a messenger are not enough to go to court. It's very unfortunate for the loaner, though, that he has to pay a much higher value now because Bitcoin costs more than it used to, but it also makes sense to me that unless there's a contract that states the value should be determined in a certain currency, one should pay the debt in the currency that was received in a loan.