|
The dinner with Buffett was full of twists and turns, and the "border control" theory pushed Justin Sun to another peak of attention. However, he and Tron may usher in their darkest moment along with this peak of attention.
Unprecedented in the past 20 years, this is the first time that the "Buffett lunch" has been cancelled in 20 years. In the past day, Sun Yuchen, who announced the cancellation of the Buffett lunch, was also caught in the tug of war between the truth and rumors in public opinion.
As a major event that attracted the attention of the global financial community, the "Buffett lunch" was originally a good thing. It also boosted the morale of blockchain industry practitioners to a great extent, and Sun Yuchen was highly praised. But soon, the public opinion was reversed. Sun Yuchen was almost in a huge public opinion controversy due to a series of over-exposed behaviors such as mocking Sogou CEO Wang Xiaochuan, blasting Wang Sicong, and inviting US President Trump, who was not optimistic about Bitcoin, to attend the Buffett lunch.
On July 23, Justin Sun officially announced that he needed to rest due to kidney stones, and the lunch with Buffett was cancelled, which caused a stir. However, Sun and Tron's statements were slightly different afterwards, and the Tron Foundation quickly responded that "the lunch will be postponed."
On the afternoon of July 23, Beijing News published an article stating that Sun Yuchen said in an interview that the Buffett lunch had been cancelled and would not be postponed, completely denying the Tron Foundation's previous statement of "postponing the event".
In the evening, a report from Caixin.com even pointed the finger at Sun Yuchen, the founder of TRON Foundation, saying that the Internet Finance Regulation Office had recommended that the public security organs file a case against him. It also stated that Sun Yuchen was not on the regulatory agency's watch list before, but because of his relationship with Buffett and continued hype, he came into the regulatory agency's sight. The idea of "border control" suddenly became popular. At this point, the price of TRX suddenly collapsed.
Afterwards, Sun Yuchen pointed out on his personal Weibo that the report of Caixin.com was completely untrue, and said that he was fine and would meet with the outside world after his condition improved. He also posted photos of his home in the United States on Twitter. The Tron Foundation also responded: Sun Yuchen and Buffett both agreed to postpone the originally agreed lunch meeting. Sun Yuchen is currently recuperating at his home in San Francisco. Public opinion is tangled, making the whole thing even more complicated. Where is Justin Sun? Can he still have lunch with Buffett? What is "border control"? Why did Justin Sun enter the supervision list? Various doubts need to be solved, and ChainDD has also verified and understood them from multiple sources.
The news of "border control" caused TRX to plunge. After Sun Yuchen was "border controlled", the price of TRX plunged rapidly after 22:30 on July 23. Binance's TRX/USDT trading pair fell to 0.022USDT at 23:20, a drop of more than 8% in less than an hour. The cumulative decline in 24 hours was close to 22%. TRX on the left, BTT on the right; data source: Binance
Then, as Sun Yuchen denied the rumor, TRX rebounded again and approached 0.024 USDT at 00:50 on the 24th, up more than 9% in less than an hour. As of 10:25 on July 24, TRX was quoted at 0.02338 USDT, and the 24-hour decline also retreated to around 12%.
Judging from the trading data, from 22:00 to 24:00 on July 23, in just two hours, the main net outflow of TRX was as high as 572,900 US dollars. Although it was stimulated by good news and showed a net inflow trend for a time, it still showed a net outflow trend as a whole, but the speed slowed down.
Apart from TRX, BTT, one of the tokens on the TRON mainnet, has a very similar trend to TRX and also suffered a waterfall at almost the same time. Between 22:00 and 23:00 on July 23, the BTT/USDT trading pair on Binance fell by more than 6%, and the price hit a new low since July 18.
Detailed explanation of "border control": The core controversy of the situation faced by Justin Sun stems from the word "border control". The legal effect behind this concept is not known to the public. Several people close to the competent authorities clearly stated to the ChainDD App that Justin Sun has indeed been included in the "border control" list because he was involved in many financial cases reported by the masses, and the amount of funds involved is large, but no criminal compulsory measures have been taken against him so far, and he is still in the investigation stage. The specific matters of the public security case handling cannot be disclosed to the public for the time being because they involve confidential information.
At the same time, Liande also confirmed with many friends around Sun Yuchen that Sun Yuchen has been abroad recently and has not returned to China. But whether he really has "kidney stones" is unknown.
So what is “border control”?
Generally speaking, "border control" is what we often call border control, which usually includes restrictions on exit and entry. The restricted subjects include Chinese citizens and foreigners (people who do not have Chinese nationality). As long as the relevant departments determine that there are basic facts or reasons for suspected crimes, they can implement "border control" without filing a case. The reasons here include receiving reports, having certain internal clues and evidence. However, "border control" is not an accurate legal concept. Even in the "Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People's Republic of China", the term "border control" is not used.
As far as border control is concerned, it may include two aspects for Chinese citizens: one is the restriction on leaving the country, and the other is that corresponding measures may be taken upon entry. Lawyer Pang Lipeng, head of the Chain Law team, told Liandede that "border control measures are strictly implemented within the framework permitted by law and in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law. The existence of border control measures is conducive to the entry and exit ports to verify and control in place." When subject to border control restrictions, if the person is in China, he will inevitably be restricted when leaving the country; if the person is abroad, the relevant departments will take regulatory measures upon entry, and the specific measures will be determined according to the case.
Therefore, "border control" is not a means of restricting personal freedom, nor does it mean that the person under "border control" has been found guilty and compulsory measures have been taken.
For example, Huizhou Huidong Court previously took border control measures to successfully control a debtor who was evading repayment abroad. When he entered the country, he was stopped by border police and successfully recovered the 190,000 yuan in debt. In this case, by taking border control measures against the party, he was stopped when he entered the country, and based on the fact that he evaded repayment, he was required to repay the debt.
In what situations will “border control” be imposed?
The legally effective "border control" requires clear document notification. The "Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs" points out that if border control measures need to be taken against criminal suspects at ports, a border control object notification should be prepared in accordance with relevant regulations. Once the subsequent chain of evidence is formed, the "suspect" will be punished according to the corresponding illegal provisions; or after the investigation is clear, the border control will be cancelled. In other words, in general, "border control" is a measure taken because of the existing evidence.
It is important to note that in the legal provisions restricting Chinese citizens from leaving the country, there are clear restrictions on the identity of the parties involved. According to Article 2 of the Notice on Several Provisions on Restricting the Exit of Foreigners and Chinese Citizens in Accordance with the Law, only those who are suspected of crimes identified by public security agencies, national security agencies, people's courts, people's procuratorates and other institutions, or those who have other illegal acts that have not been dealt with and need to be held accountable for legal responsibility, will be restricted from leaving the country.
This means that both criminal and civil cases may involve border control issues; especially in criminal cases, regardless of whether they enter the judicial process, public security law enforcement agencies can directly implement "border control" measures based on the actual needs of the case investigation.
Since Justin Sun is currently abroad, does the "border control" still have a restraining effect on Chinese citizens abroad? How does the "border control" work? If the "border control" subjects refuse to return to China to cooperate with the investigation, how to take further measures?
The answer that Liande App consulted with several relevant legal professionals was: there is no way to impose cross-border restrictions. Given that Justin Sun is currently in San Francisco, even if the "border control" is finally implemented, he will have to wait until the next time he enters China before he will be subject to the review of the regulatory authorities and restrictions on his re-exit.
At the same time, "extradition" cannot be carried out. If there is no solid evidence to formally enter the judicial process, the person concerned and his current country can choose not to cooperate with the investigation of the Chinese judicial authorities. During the investigation process, it is impossible to restrict the unity of the judicial authorities and the parties in the investigation objects, case handling personnel, location and time.
Unless the Ministry of Public Security appoints Interpol to go abroad to negotiate with local police, and the local police take compulsory measures against the subject of the investigation, this situation is unlikely for the time being, and it depends on how the subsequent events develop. However, as the relevant cases are investigated and developed in depth, the situation may change at any time.
Controversy on the road to entrepreneurship As an important part of Sun Yuchen's entrepreneurial map, Tron has brought glory but also troubles from the beginning. In August 2017, Tron raised about 400 million yuan through ICO despite the doubts of "air coin"; just one month later, the "9.4 ban" was issued, requiring all kinds of token issuance and financing activities to stop immediately, and organizations and individuals that have completed token issuance and financing should make arrangements for withdrawal; Sun Yuchen also said that the token financing withdrawal work was completed on September 20, 2017.
However, Liu Ming, the former COO of TRON, revealed that Sun Yuchen had originally refused to return the coins, but was later forced to withdraw the funds under pressure from cooperative institutions and other parties. He also accused Sun Yuchen, who was abroad at the time, of not caring about his domestic situation at all and his behavior was "very bad."
On June 30 this year, the Ponzi scheme scam - TRON Super Community App was suspected to have run away, and investors were unable to withdraw cash. TRON Super Community used the name of TRON Super Representatives and a pyramid scheme-style promotion method to attract users to register, charge TRON tokens, and complete the operation of recruiting people to obtain more TRON coins. After the incident, although Justin Sun repeatedly reminded investors to be wary of scams on Weibo, he never directly responded to the relationship between the project and TRON. In such a scam that uses TRX as the operating medium, it is difficult for TRON and Justin Sun to stay out of it. According to the Liande App, this incident was also the direct fuse of this investigation.
Apart from TRON, Sun Yuchen's other companies also face stains. In June 2018, his Peiwo App was named by Xinhua News Agency as being involved in pornography. Subsequently, Sun Yuchen stated on Weibo that Peiwo App was legal and compliant, but he did not respond directly to the controversy and doubts. He only said that some negative energy content generated by users on the platform existed, and as a platform, it would firmly oppose it. Later, a media investigation found that the Peiwo App homepage recommendation still contained extremely explicit and provocative content. Data source/Tianyancha In addition to the above incidents, according to Tianyancha data, Sun Yuchen's Ruibo (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd., Peiwo Huanle (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd., and Guangzhou Peiwo Information Technology Co., Ltd. were all included in the list of abnormal business operations because their registered residences or business premises could not be contacted.
The controversy surrounding Justin Sun has never stopped. Whether it is fighting with Sogou CEO Wang Xiaochuan or responding to Wang Sicong's ridicule, every controversy seems to confirm his previous remarks: "I really can't stand loneliness. When I decide whether to do something, it is very important whether it is lively or not. I must have someone to pay attention to me. Even if it is scolding me?" (Lian Dede) |
