Although the court issued a foreclosure order for the funds of the virtual currency account, it turned out that there was a case where the virtual currency exchange company did not correspond as "technically difficult" and it became impossible to enforce it.
It was a woman in his 70s who filed a foreclosure.
According to the lawyer of the agent, in May 2016, it is solicited from a vendor in Saitama Prefecture to "profit if resold" and will be able to purchase virtual currency equivalent to about 500,000 yen at 15 million yen, 30 times the price I got consumer trouble.
We reconciled with the merchant side with the refund of purchase price, but payment stopped.
In order to collect about 13 million yen of unpaid repayment, we filed an order for the Saitama District Court two times, alleging claims in Fuji's "Wallet" which is the account of the virtual currency "ripple" in the name of the representative of the vendor.
However, the exchange company says, "We do not manage Wallet, we have the danger of double payment on technology, so we can not return it."
The exchange company could not freeze Wallet, and if the exchange company paid damages on behalf of the company, it was said that they were not able to collect from the vendor side and suffer losses due to such reasons.
As evidenced by the fact that the wallet was not frozen, there was evidence that the merchant moved the virtual currency, but the payment refund was stopped.
In exchange for the newspaper interview, the exchange company commented, "Consultation with an advisory lawyer revealed that there is a legal problem in payment, we have not paid for women (victims)."
On the other hand, exchange companies that respond to enforcement against virtual currencies.
A GMO coin, a major virtual currency exchange company, said, "There are several cases in response to a foreclosure request from a court or tax authorities."
It states that "When you receive a foreclosure complaint, you can suspend or cancel the use of the service" in the contract at the time of contract, saying that it will take the procedure to remit money to the designated account after converting it to Japanese yen.
A major bit flyer also replied that "there were several cases of receiving foreclosure orders in the past".
Technically it explained that freezing is possible, but how it responded to an order was "I can not answer with confidential information."
Tax authorities also have difficulties in dealing with it. The foreclosure in case of delinquent taxes also covers the virtual currency. If the non-paying delinquent person is not using the exchange company, there is a fear that the virtual currency will be cashed without payment or remittance will be made. "There is a problem in the effectiveness of foreclosure" (national tax officials) is the actual situation.
A university professor who is familiar with the virtual currency points out that "virtual currency without administrator is not supposed to seizure by public authority etc. It is impossible to guarantee technically secure enforcement."
"We are unfamiliar with healthy financial transactions at present, and it is indispensable to establish legislation and rules so that exchange companies can freeze deposits etc, at the same time" as they may become a hotbed such as money laundering and asset concealment.
Legal maintenance that does not cause disadvantage for users is required.
裁判所が仮想通貨口座の資金の差し押さえ命令を出したのに仮想通貨交換会社が「技術的に困難」として対応せず、強制執行できない状態になる事例があったことが分かった。
差し押さえを申し立てたのは70代の女性。
代理人の弁護士によると、2016年５月、埼玉県内の業者から「転売すれば利益が出る」と勧誘され、約50万円相当の仮想通貨を相場の30倍の1500万円で購入させられる消費者トラブルに遭った。
業者側と購入代金の返還で和解したが、支払いが停止。
未返済の約1300万円を回収するため、業者の代表者名義の仮想通貨「リップル」の口座に当たる「ウォレット」内の債権差し押さえを申し立て、さいたま地裁２回にわたり命令を出した。
しかし交換会社は「ウォレットは当社で管理していない。技術上、二重払いの危険があり、返還できない」と主張。
交換会社側ではウォレットの凍結はできず、交換会社が被害金を代わりに支払った場合、業者側から回収できずに損失を被る恐れがあることなどを理由に対応を見送ったという。
ウォレットが凍結されなかったため業者が仮想通貨を移動させた形跡がみられたが、代金返還は停止したまま。
交換会社は新聞社の取材に対し、「顧問弁護士と協議し、弁済に法的な問題があることが判明した。（被害者の）女性への支払いはしていない」とコメントしている。
一方、仮想通貨に対する強制執行に応じている交換会社も。
仮想通貨交換会社大手のＧＭＯコインは「裁判所や税務当局からの顧客口座の差し押さえ要請に応じた事例は数件ある」と説明。
契約時の約款に「差し押さえの申し立てを受けた場合、サービスの利用を停止、解約できる」と明記しており、日本円に換金した上で、指定口座に送金する手続きをとるという。
大手のビットフライヤーも「差し押さえ命令を受けた事例は過去に数件ある」と回答。
技術的には凍結は可能と説明したが、命令にどう対応したかは「機密情報で答えられない」とした。
税務当局も対応に苦慮する。税金を滞納した場合の差し押さえは仮想通貨も対象となる。滞納者が交換会社を使っていなければ仮想通貨を無断で換金したり、送金されたりする恐れがある。「差し押さえの実効性に課題がある」（国税関係者）のが実情だ。
仮想通貨に詳しいある大学教授は「管理者のいない仮想通貨は公権力による差し押さえなどを想定していない。技術的にも確実な強制執行を担保するのは不可能だ」と指摘。
マネーロンダリングや資産隠しなどの温床になりかねないとして「現状では健全な金融取引になじまない。せめて交換会社が預かり金などを凍結できるような法整備やルールづくりが不可欠だ」と話す。
利用者に不利益が生じない法整備が求められている。