Court Hearing Records and Reflections on a Gambling Case Involving a Digital Asset Trading Platform

Recently, a highly publicized gambling case involving a digital asset trading platform held its third court hearing. This case has gone through multiple investigations and hearings, with considerable controversy. As an observer, I would like to take this opportunity to share some courtroom observations and personal insights.

Case Background

A certain digital asset trading platform was investigated by the police due to allegations of gambling related to one of its modules. The platform believes that this module does not constitute gambling, as users will immediately receive an equivalent amount of assets based on how much they invest, with no possibility of loss. However, law enforcement agencies have determined it to be a gambling game. After more than a year of detention and multiple court hearings, the final trial has finally arrived.

Court Trial Transcript

Evidence and Cross-Examination Stage

The prosecution personnel have changed for this court session. The defense attorney expressed doubts about this, and after a brief explanation from the judge, the hearing began.

The prosecution presented a list of seized assets related to the liquidation of the defendant's digital assets. The defense questioned the legality of this disposal action, arguing that the assets involved in the case should not be disposed of without court judgment. In response, the prosecutor did not make any comments.

court debate session

The prosecutor only briefly read the contents of the indictment and did not elaborate on the focal points of the case disputes. In contrast, the defense counsel made a lengthy defense statement. However, unfortunately, during the defense process, the presiding judge and others appeared to be distracted and even engaged in private conversations. This behavior caused dissatisfaction among the defense counsel.

Throughout the entire debate session, the prosecution remained unusually silent, hardly responding to or rebutting the defense's points. This approach inevitably raises questions about the prosecution's attitude towards the case and whether they were adequately prepared.

Other details

It is worth mentioning that, despite facing accusations, the platform leader demonstrated admirable responsibility during the trial. Even when employees attempted to shift the blame onto him, he remained calm and even helped raise the microphone when employees spoke, ensuring their voices could be clearly heard. This scene showcased his broad-mindedness and demeanor as a leader.

Judgment Results and Reflections

Finally, the first-instance judgment has been released. Although the defendant is still found guilty, the sentence has been significantly reduced compared to the prosecution's recommendation. However, there are some perplexing issues in the judgment document:

1. The judgment heavily cited the defendant's statements during the investigation phase, lacking substantial evidence.

2. The judgment contains the term "perpetual contract" which is unrelated to this case, and it appears to be an error copied and pasted from the judgments of other cases.

3. The judgment did not provide a clear explanation regarding the disposal of large digital assets involved in the case.

These questions inevitably raise doubts about the fairness and rigor of the judgment.

Insights on Case Handling

As a legal practitioner, I deeply feel the significant impact of criminal cases on the parties involved and their families. Regardless of the size of the case, it should be treated seriously and fairly. Throughout the judicial process, from investigation and prosecution to trial, every step should strictly adhere to legal provisions, ensuring that the evidence is conclusive and the procedures are lawful.

However, some issues exposed in this case, such as the possible "profit-driven law enforcement", insufficient rigor in evidence examination, and inadequate attention to defense opinions during the trial, are worth our deep reflection. These problems may not only affect the fairness of individual cases but may also undermine the credibility of the entire judicial system.

What we expect is a judicial environment that can truly adhere to "facts as the basis, the law as the standard." Whether it is the investigative agency, the procuratorial agency, or the court, they should objectively and fairly perform their duties with a sense of responsibility towards the law and the parties involved. Only in this way can we truly achieve fairness and justice in the law and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of every citizen.