The rules on unjust enrichment are subsidiary to the rules on the investment loan agreement in cryptocurrency
Case Facts:
A.A. Boldyrev filed a claim for recovery against R.M. Salakhov, citing the fact that he had provided him with temporary use of funds in the amount of USD 313,172.60 [investment loan agreement] by transferring USDT (Tether) cryptocurrency through a mobile application from his Trust Wallet e-wallet to R.M. Salakhov's e-wallet, but the defendant evades fulfilling his obligations to return the funds.
A.A. Boldyrev's demands:
→ to recover from R.M. Salakhov unjust enrichment in the amount of USD 313,172.60,
→ interest for the use of funds - USD 1,948.03,
→ expenses for paying state fees - RUB 60,000.
NB Defense of R.M. Salakhova was based on the position that he does not own the multi-currency crypto wallet referred to by the plaintiff, that he does not know with whom the plaintiff corresponded and where he planned to invest the funds.
The first instance dismissed the claim, the appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance and satisfied the requirements, the cassation court left the appellate ruling unchanged, then the cassation appeal with the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
Position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation:
1. The decision of the court of appeal cannot be considered lawful if the legal relationship between the parties to the dispute is not correctly legally qualified.
2. The question of the presence or absence of the defendant's above-mentioned legal grounds for acquiring or saving his property at the expense of the plaintiff is of legal significance for the qualification of relations as arising from unjust enrichment.
3. The appellate court, without checking the arguments of the parties about the existence of contractual legal relations between them, did not establish the legally significant circumstances necessary for the correct resolution of the dispute, but applied the rules on unjust enrichment, which are subsidiary in relation to the rules on the relevant contract.
4. The appellate ruling on the recovery of unjust enrichment as received outside the contract does not contain any conclusions regarding how the fact of the defendant's ownership of the crypto wallet to which the cryptocurrency was transferred was established in such a case.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the appellate ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court, which left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 69-КГ24-3-K7 dated 16.04.24.
Position of the court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra:
a) During the consideration of the case, the plaintiff's arguments about the existence of loan legal relations between the parties were not confirmed.
b) During the consideration of the case, the plaintiff's arguments about the existence of any property in the form of digital currency, the transfer of this property in favor of R.M. Salakhov and the acceptance of this property by the defendant were not confirmed.
c) Claims related to the participation of citizens in the transactions specified in paragraph 2 of Article 1062 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are subject to judicial protection only if they are concluded on the stock exchange, as well as in other cases provided by law.
d) Claims of persons specified in Part 5 of Article 14 of the Federal Law of 31.07.2020 No. 259-FZ related to the possession of digital currency are subject to judicial protection only if they inform about the facts of possession of digital currency and the execution of civil transactions and (or) operations with digital currency in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees.
d) The information specified in the text of the plaintiff's own statement of claim indicates the plaintiff's intention to participate in the circulation of digital currency.
Appellate ruling of the court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra No. 33-4023/2024 dated 02.07.24.
A.A. Boldyrev filed a claim for recovery against R.M. Salakhov, citing the fact that he had provided him with temporary use of funds in the amount of USD 313,172.60 [investment loan agreement] by transferring USDT (Tether) cryptocurrency through a mobile application from his Trust Wallet e-wallet to R.M. Salakhov's e-wallet, but the defendant evades fulfilling his obligations to return the funds.
A.A. Boldyrev's demands:
→ to recover from R.M. Salakhov unjust enrichment in the amount of USD 313,172.60,
→ interest for the use of funds - USD 1,948.03,
→ expenses for paying state fees - RUB 60,000.
NB Defense of R.M. Salakhova was based on the position that he does not own the multi-currency crypto wallet referred to by the plaintiff, that he does not know with whom the plaintiff corresponded and where he planned to invest the funds.
The first instance dismissed the claim, the appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance and satisfied the requirements, the cassation court left the appellate ruling unchanged, then the cassation appeal with the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
Position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation:
1. The decision of the court of appeal cannot be considered lawful if the legal relationship between the parties to the dispute is not correctly legally qualified.
2. The question of the presence or absence of the defendant's above-mentioned legal grounds for acquiring or saving his property at the expense of the plaintiff is of legal significance for the qualification of relations as arising from unjust enrichment.
3. The appellate court, without checking the arguments of the parties about the existence of contractual legal relations between them, did not establish the legally significant circumstances necessary for the correct resolution of the dispute, but applied the rules on unjust enrichment, which are subsidiary in relation to the rules on the relevant contract.
4. The appellate ruling on the recovery of unjust enrichment as received outside the contract does not contain any conclusions regarding how the fact of the defendant's ownership of the crypto wallet to which the cryptocurrency was transferred was established in such a case.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the appellate ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court, which left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 69-КГ24-3-K7 dated 16.04.24.
Position of the court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra:
a) During the consideration of the case, the plaintiff's arguments about the existence of loan legal relations between the parties were not confirmed.
b) During the consideration of the case, the plaintiff's arguments about the existence of any property in the form of digital currency, the transfer of this property in favor of R.M. Salakhov and the acceptance of this property by the defendant were not confirmed.
c) Claims related to the participation of citizens in the transactions specified in paragraph 2 of Article 1062 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are subject to judicial protection only if they are concluded on the stock exchange, as well as in other cases provided by law.
d) Claims of persons specified in Part 5 of Article 14 of the Federal Law of 31.07.2020 No. 259-FZ related to the possession of digital currency are subject to judicial protection only if they inform about the facts of possession of digital currency and the execution of civil transactions and (or) operations with digital currency in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees.
d) The information specified in the text of the plaintiff's own statement of claim indicates the plaintiff's intention to participate in the circulation of digital currency.
Appellate ruling of the court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra No. 33-4023/2024 dated 02.07.24.