moot court proposition- cryptocurrency ban in the union of Lebonoff

 FRESHER MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

 May it please this honorable court, I am counsel (code) appearing on behalf

of the petitioner in the case of Bruno V. Union of Lebanoff.

 Would your lordships like a synopsis of the fact of the case ?

Bruno (petitioner) is a citizen of Union of Lebanoff who is aggrieved by the

legislation of the government of Lebonoff that no person shall mine,

generate, hold, sell, deal in, issue, transfer, dispose of or use of crypto-

currency in the territory of Lebonoff unless otherwise expressly permitted by

any provision of law. In case of violation stringent penalities shall be

imposed on the offender.

 If your lordship permit, may I briefly enlist my contentions?

My contentions structured in a manner that I 1 st present my case that how the

Union of Lebonoff legislation for banning the crypto-curencies is a

violation of Fundamental rights. Then I proceed to few honorable Court

Judgments in order to justify my contentions. Than I proceed to conclusion

and solution that is necessary to solve the issue and protect the fundamental

rights of the citizen of Lebonoff.

 Your lordship may I proceed to my contentions?

Contentions:

It is humbly submitted that plaintiff is aggrieved by the legislation of the

Lebonoff government that impose absolute ban on the crypto-currency

trading. In my opinion the action of the government is arbitrary as the

decision taken by the government with the assumption that crypto currency

is a threat to the nation security and banning crypto-currency is necessary to

achieve the objective of protecting the security of the nation. The Lebonoff

FRESHER MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

government also stated that the ban on crypto-currency is a reasonable

measure to eliminate the threat of endangering nation security.

The ban that imposed on crypto-currencies in the Lebonoff is based on the

mere assumption that crypto-currency is a “threat to the national security”

and the government is failed to look into the matter in a wider perspective.

The outright ban of the crypto-currencies is a cause of concern because it

will lead to the great losses suffered by the citizen of the country. Those who

are invested in the crypto-currencies before the legislation comes into effect.

The government also failed to look into the matter that the outright ban is

not a hard and fast rule to eliminate threats.

 If your lordships are satisfied with this contention, may I move on to the

next contention ?

The outright ban imposed on crypto-currency is a violation of right to trade

under article 19(1)(g) of the Lebanoff constitution. The constitution allow to

impose reasonable restriction on the rights of citizen. The constitution does

not allow to impose absolute restriction without taking reasonable measures

which mitigate the effects of the problem at first place.

 May I refer your lordships to the judgement of the Honorable courts of my

complitation ?

Recently, Karnataka High Court in the case of All India Gaming Federation

V. State of Karnataka struck down Karnataka Police (Amendment) act, 2021

on the ground of violating right to trade & commerce under article 19 (1)(g)

of the constitution as well as right to privacy under article 21 & freedom of

speech & expression under article 19 (1)(a) of the constitution. Karnataka

Police (Amendment) act, 2021 impose outright ban on online gaming on the

grounds that it will lead to gambling, terror funding & involve risking

money on an uncertain event.

FRESHER MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

The Karnataka High Court in its judgement stated that the amendment is

arbitrary & irrational as it did not distinguish between 2 categories of game,

i.e. games of skill & games of chance. The game of skill based mainly on

mental & physical level of expertise of a player rather than a chance. Games

based on skills are allowed in the country but games based on mere chance

to determine success are prohibited under law.

The Karnataka High Court is not the only High Court that struck down the

orders of banning online games. Similar law were introduced by the Tamil

Nadu government with the aim to ban online gaming in the state. The law

was struck down by the Madras High Court in August 2021. Similarly

Kerala High Court had quashed NOTIFICATION issued by the state

government specifically banning the online games of skills.

In an alternative, it is humbly submitted that, Telangana, which was the 1 st

state to ban online games in the state in 2017 has seen a spurt of illegal or

underground online gaming apps that are originated from foreign countries

without any regulation in the country where people are playing such games

and spending their money. This might be one of the response of the outright

ban on crypto by the Lebonoff government and this will lead to intensify the

situation which is hard to mitigate.

The reason why I mention this case law in my contention that there is a

similar situation in the case of Bruno V. Union of Lebonoff. The

government unreasonably ban crypto currency trading in the nation without

considering other factors that are beneficial for the national interest.

The Crypto run on block-chain system on a peer-to-peer network that help to

keep in check on corruption by tracking the flow of funds & transaction. The

Crypto is a time effective & save money as it conducted entirely on the

internet that involve very less transaction fees and is almost instantaneous. It

provides easy transfer of money between individual without involving 3 rd

party like credit/debit cards or bank. Crypto charge minimal processing fees

that makes it cheaper than online transaction. .

FRESHER MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

The Court ultimately held that it is true that despite the fact that virtual

currencies are not recognised as legal tender, they are very much capable of

performing some of the functions of actual and real currency. The

government should also try to figure out how to make virtual currencies a

legal tender in the country as the country acquainted with the potential of the

virtual currencies in the world and regulate it under the ambit of law.

“The judgment is a positive step towards the freedom of trade in India and

also highlights the approach of Indian Courts which is positively tailored

to making India’s software industry in sync with countries like the United

States, United Kingdom, Singapore and Japan, where the trade in virtual-

currency is regulated.”

In the case of Chintamanrao V. State of Madhya Pradesh, an act of Madhya

Pradesh Government empowered the deputy Commissioner to prohibit the

manufacturing of tobacco cigarette during agricultural season. The Supreme

Court of India held that such a provision is void as it violates article 19(1)(g)

since a total prohibition of manufacture imposes as unreasonable &

excessive restriction.

In toto, the constitution has granted fundamental right to trade under article

19(1)(g) for the prosperity & well being of everyone in the society. the state

ensure that no individual residing within the territorial boundaries of the

country is deprived of this right and provide appropriate remedy in case of

such violations of fundamental rights and ensure that justice is delivered to

the aggrieved.

Every Citizen should utilize right to trade under article 19(1)(g) to the best

of his capacities in a rational manner and state shall not compelled to

exercise force & unreasonable intervention with citizens business activities.

 Conclusion:

Instead of banning Crypto Currencies government could look at licensing &

regulating the crypto trading. Government work upon diligent KYC & anti-

FRESHER MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

money laundering processes. Place weekly & monthly limit on the money

that is used for trading.

Much obliged for the kind & patient hearing your lordships.

Thank you your lordship…