The Orissa High Court in India has made a significant ruling regarding the legality of cryptocurrency dealings within the country. The court's decision stemmed from a case involving individuals accused of fraudulent activities related to a Ponzi scheme. Justice Sasikanta Mishra, presiding over the case, clarified that cryptocurrency does not fall under the definitions of money according to the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act or as a deposit under the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors Act. This clarification means that mere dealings in cryptocurrency are not considered offenses under these specific laws.
The Orissa High Court's ruling emphasized that engaging in cryptocurrency transactions cannot be deemed illegal in any respect. This ruling sets a precedent for the legal status of cryptocurrency dealings in India.
The case that led to this decision involved accusations against two individuals who allegedly defrauded people through a Ponzi scheme. The core legal issue revolved around determining whether these actions violated the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act and the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors Act.
Justice Sasikanta Mishra's verdict stated that cryptocurrency does not qualify as 'money' as defined in the relevant laws and that investments made by the public in cryptocurrency do not constitute deposits under the OPID Act. The judge highlighted that simply engaging in cryptocurrency transactions cannot be classified as illegal in any form and therefore does not violate the OPID Act.
The individuals involved in the case allegedly operated a fictitious cryptocurrency company and convinced individuals to invest in a digital currency named Yes World Token. They attracted investors by promising significant returns and bonuses based on recruiting new members. This investment scheme displayed similarities to multi-level marketing strategies, leading to concerns regarding its legality and protection of investors.
Justice Mishra pointed out the lack of evidence suggesting that the accused had deceived anyone into transferring property to them. He stressed that the investment process did not support claims of fraudulence since the invested funds remained secure in trust wallets.
The judge concluded that the accused had not committed the alleged offenses under section 420, as there was no evidence of forgery, manipulation, or fabrication of documents to warrant charges under sections 467, 468, or 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
The ruling by the Orissa High Court regarding cryptocurrency dealings has significant implications for the legal landscape surrounding digital assets in India. It provides clarity on the treatment of cryptocurrency transactions under specific laws and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.
Share your thoughts on this ruling in the comments section below.
