A good-hearted student taught cryptocurrency, but got sued! An elementary school teacher lost money and had him “buy back BTC at a high price,” while also seeking $7 million in compensation

A primary school art teacher in Hsinchu asked a former student for help in opening accounts and managing virtual currency on his behalf back in 2017. Over the period, he transferred a total of $7.82 million to the student’s account to buy ETH, BTC, and XRP. When the market was booming, the student urged him to take profits and close the position, but he blocked it with: “I won’t stop until I have assets worth over 50k.” In the end, he lost everything.

Years later, he turned around and accused the student of fraud, demanding $7 million in compensation. After the Hsinchu District Court’s hearing, the court found there was no fraud. It also noted the two sides had already settled and cleared everything with $50k, so it ruled against the teacher and dismissed the entire case.

(Background summary: Hundreds of junior-income girls were brainwashed! A “film-and-TV coin” scam case siphoned in over 50k; seminars, office units on floors 101, and guaranteed profits worked.)
(Additional context: Taiwan’s Bitcoin frenzy: the number of coin trust registrations and trading activity both hit record highs, with the APP’s finance category ranking surging to second place.)

Table of contents

Toggle

• Profit over $72k, yet still wanted to stop only when he had “assets worth over 50k”
• He accepted 0.9 BTC as a favor—and was sued for $7 million anyway
• The court slapped him down: investment risk is on you

Key highlights

• The Hsinchu District Court ruled that Chen, an art teacher, transferred $7.82 million in 2017 to a student to manage virtual currency on his behalf; after losing everything, he sued for fraud seeking $7 million and the claim was rejected
• When the student’s profits broke $50k, he had urged the teacher to withdraw; the teacher refused with “I’ll stop only when I have assets worth over 100 million.” The court held the risk should be borne by him personally and found no fraud
• In June 2024, the two sides had already reached a settlement by offsetting $7 million with $50k and signed their own-written “both parties have settled,” extinguishing the debt and leaving no basis for further claims

Losing money on an investment but blaming the mistake on someone else is something that can happen, so never casually teach others to invest and interfere with other people’s cause and effect. The Hsinchu District Court recently concluded a dispute over virtual currency investment. In 2017, a primary school art teacher surnamed Chen, with the help of a former student, You Nan, opened accounts and managed ETH, BTC, and XRP on his behalf; the total amount that You Nan’s account received from Chen was as high as $7.826 million.

After the teacher suffered losses, he claimed he had been scammed by the student. He sued the former student and sought $7 million in compensation. After trial, the court determined there was no fraud and that the two sides had already settled. It ruled that the teacher lost entirely, and even rejected his request for provisional execution.

The most intriguing part of this case lies in the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. You Nan was Chen’s primary school student. When he helped manage crypto in 2017, he was already an intern doctor. He had to run hospital rotations and on-call shifts while also preparing for national exams. There was no power of attorney or appointment contract signed between the two, and no agreement on remuneration—purely a favor out of teacher-student goodwill.

Profit exceeded $1 million, yet still wanted to stop only when he had “assets worth over 100 million”

According to the timeline reconstructed from the judgment, Chen, from May 10, 2017 to December 26, he made 11 transfers in installments to You Nan’s account to buy ETH, BTC, BTC cash, and XRP. The two largest single transfers were $2 million each. 2017 was the most frenzied period for crypto investment in Taiwan. ETH and BTC surged within the year, and Chen’s account showed unrealized profits of more than $1 million at one point.

The problem was that he refused to get off the ride. You Nan then messaged to remind him: “Teacher, when are you planning to withdraw your funds? With so much money tied up in this high-risk speculative product, my pressure is enormous every day. Right now, my profit is already over $1 million.” Chen, however, refused, citing “I won’t stop until I have assets worth over 100 million.” That line later became one of the key reasons for his loss in court.

Then the market reversed. Chen started placing orders frequently and chasing higher prices. The judgment quoted his own messages: “The main force is running a rigged line; the hands and feet look just like a con. I got anxious and fell for it too easily,” “No matter how I compare, the one that earns the most is the one that doesn’t move,” and even messages saying “XX, please take over (manage the account)” and “Turn off my permissions.” These messages actually proved that the trading control permissions of the account always remained in Chen’s hands—that he was the one entering and exiting trades during the run.

A “good-hearted student” accepted 0.9 BTC anyway—and was sued for $7 million

Later, because the account had abnormal trading, it was locked by the Bittrex exchange, leaving about 0.9 BTC in it. Chen asked You Nan to redeem the principal back to him at the historical highest price of $72k per BTC. You Nan argued that the market price at the time was actually only about $1.7 million. Most ironically, this “good-hearted student” still took the bait and paid in installments totaling $2.7 million, taking over those 0.9 BTC that had trapped the teacher.

Thinking it would end there, Chen nonetheless came back in 2024 to demand payment again. On June 1 of that year, You Nan first signed a repayment agreement, promising to repay $7 million monthly within five years. But a few days later, on June 24, 2024, after negotiations with You Nan’s parents involved, the two sides reached a settlement: the $7 million repayment agreement was voided, and the amount was offset with $50k. Chen also personally wrote, “Chen (the teacher) will no longer pursue it; both parties have settled,” and the entire process was recorded and preserved as evidence.

“Whereas You (Nan) originally promised to return to Chen (the teacher) the $7 million loss from the investment of You (Nan); considering the parties’ repayment capability and willingness, the parties hereby enter into this agreement and it is agreed that the $7 million repayment agreement shall be offset by $50k; the original $7 million repayment agreement shall be void; (Chen the teacher) will no longer pursue it; and both parties have settled.”
（Recorded in the reconciliation documents dated June 24 of year 113 in the judgment）

In theory, with a written agreement and a video recording, this should have ended the matter. Yet Chen still used that $7 million agreement—which had already been voided—to file the lawsuit. He argued that the settlement was obtained by deceiving him with claims from the defendant’s family that he would “end up on the road to ruin,” and sought rescission under the Civil Code.

The court slapped him down: investment risk is your own responsibility

The court did not accept Chen’s claims. The presiding judge pointed out that the party alleging fraud bears the burden of proof, but Chen’s recorded audio and conversation screenshot only showed that after the investment failed, he kept questioning You Nan; they could not prove that You Nan delayed opening the account or provided false information in a fraudulent way. Conversely, You Nan not only did not guarantee profits, he also repeatedly reminded him of risks and suggested withdrawing capital, making it difficult to recognize an intention to commit fraud subjectively on You Nan’s part.

The judge was even more direct: as a teacher, Chen was a sufficiently knowledgeable adult. “A normal person with sound knowledge should understand that investing inherently carries risk, especially where high returns come with high risk, and there is no such thing as guaranteed profit.” If the investment return did not meet expectations, the risk should be borne by the investor. As for that $7 million, the parties’ reconciliation in June 2024 had already extinguished the debt. Chen also could not produce evidence proving he signed the settlement due to fraud. In the end, the entire case was rejected.

A favor between teacher and student turned into years of lawsuits and trouble. This ruling serves as a reminder to everyone who wants to “bring others into investment casually.” When the market is good, everyone seems to have a sure bet; when they lose money, the court only looks at whether you made your own decisions.

Common questions

If you lose money by helping someone trade virtual currency on their behalf, are you responsible?

Based on this Hsinchu District Court judgment, if there is no appointment contract between the two sides, the manager does not guarantee profits and does not employ fraudulent tactics, and the investor retains control permissions to execute trades, then investment losses are market risk and should be borne by the investor. In this case, because the managing student had reminded risks and recommended withdrawing capital, the court found no fraud liability and ruled that he did not need to pay compensation.

If a reconciliation agreement has been signed in an investment dispute, can you still sue again?

In principle, no. Under Civil Code Articles 736 and 737, reconciliation has the effect of extinguishing the original rights. In this case, in June 2024 the two sides offset $7 million with $50,000 and personally wrote “both parties have settled.” The court held the $7 million debt had been extinguished. Unless it can be proved that the reconciliation itself was obtained through fraud, you cannot seek compensation again under the original agreement.