The case has become a major test of how digital assets are handled when criminal proceeds cross borders. It also links China’s domestic confiscation process with a separate dispute in the United Kingdom over who may claim bitcoin seized there.
The High Court judgment in Director of Public Prosecutions v Qian & Anor held that Chinese law governs victims’ proprietary claims concerning the bitcoin seized in Britain. The court did not determine who ultimately owns the coins, how they should be distributed or whether victims will recover them.
That distinction is important. The ruling addresses the legal framework for future claims, rather than settling the competing interests of victims, prosecutors or law enforcement agencies. Further proceedings will be needed before the ownership and distribution questions are resolved.
A fraud built around promised returns
The alleged scheme centers on Qian Zhimin, whom Chinese prosecutors identify as the alleged controller of Tianjin Lantian Gree Electronic Technology. According to reports based on the prosecution application and a court notice, the company sold unlicensed wealth-management products that promised investors guaranteed principal and high returns.
The business allegedly used new investor money to repay earlier participants, a structure consistent with a Ponzi-style operation. Prosecutors also allege that funds were used to create false investment projects, purchase bitcoin and acquire property, vehicles and jewelry.
The reported fundraising total exceeded 40.378 billion yuan between 2014 and 2017. The alleged losses suffered by investors were nearly 20 billion yuan.
The Paper reported that Tianjin’s Second Intermediate People’s Court accepted the prosecutors’ application on October 13. The court opened a six-month period for victims and other interested parties to participate in the confiscation proceedings.
Investors who do not join the case may still seek compensation from assets recovered through the process, according to the report. The notice gives claimants a formal route to present their interests while prosecutors seek to establish that the assets represent illegal proceeds.
The assets seized in Britain
Qian reportedly left China in 2017 and later settled in the United Kingdom. British authorities seized a substantial portfolio of assets connected to the case, including more than 61,800 bitcoin.
The seized holdings reportedly also included bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, bitcoin SV, XRP and dogecoin. Other assets included cash, jewelry, investment holdings, property and vehicles.
Jiemian reported that the Chinese confiscation application covers the cryptocurrency and other property seized by British authorities. The exact value of the bitcoin has changed significantly with market conditions, creating an additional question for the courts: whether recovered assets should be valued when they were seized, when they are liquidated or at another point in the proceedings.
That issue could materially affect compensation. A cryptocurrency balance does not remain economically static while a case moves through multiple legal systems. If the coins are held, their value may rise or fall. If they are sold, the timing and method of sale could influence the amount available to victims and the treatment of competing claims.
Chinese law and international recovery
The British judgment places the next stage of the ownership dispute under Chinese law. It does not mean that victims are barred from recovering the bitcoin. Instead, claims to the coins must be assessed according to the rules governing the underlying Chinese fraud and the rights created under Chinese law.
Jackson Ng of Duan & Duan UK, acting for a group of claimants, said the ruling supports applying Chinese law to the victims’ claims, while noting that later hearings will address the substantive rights of those claimants. Lawyers for some victims are seeking an appeal, according to the supplied account of the proceedings.
No opposing legal analysis was identified in the supplied sources. The available commentary supports the ruling’s approach while emphasizing that the difficult questions have not yet been answered.
The case illustrates a core feature of cryptocurrency ownership. Bitcoin can be transferred across borders without moving a physical object, but claims to that bitcoin remain subject to national criminal, property and insolvency laws. Blockchain records may show where coins move, yet they do not independently decide whether a transfer was lawful or who should receive the assets after a fraud conviction.
For victims, the Chinese confiscation case could provide a path toward recovery. For courts, it presents a broader challenge: coordinating asset seizure, digital-asset valuation and compensation when the alleged proceeds are held in a global network but the underlying offense and investor claims arise in one country.
Jessica Jones is not a person. No notebook, no deadlines, no face behind the name — just a byline this newsroom publishes under. Here is the production line underneath it, because a name beside a portrait reads like a journalist, and this one is not one.
The models. Writing: gpt-5.6-luna. Out on the live web: gpt-5.6-luna and gpt-5.6-terra. Pictures: gpt-image-1. Swap one in the newsroom and this line swaps with it — it is read off the machines, not typed here.
How a story is made
- Research. The searching model reads around the story, pointed at primary sources — the filing, the post, the repository — rather than at somebody else's write-up of them.
- Writing. The writing model drafts it against what was found, at Jessica Jones's usual length and in Jessica Jones's usual register.
- The loop. A reviewer reads the draft and sends it back with notes. Then reads it again. A piece can go round several times before it leaves the building.
- Enrichment. A quotation has to appear word for word on the page it is taken from. A chart may only use figures that appear in the source it cites. Whatever fails is dropped, and the reason is kept.
- Fact check. A last pass hunts for claims the article makes and its sources do not.
- A human stop. Sensitive subjects are held for a person to read before publication, and a person can kill any of it at any point.
If that sounds less like a newsroom and more like a factory: quite. It is called Press Factory.
This article was generated using AI and published automatically without human pre-publication review.
Read and checked by admin on 10/23/2026
How this article was made
The article was produced by the Grandmonts Media News Engine using automated research, drafting and verification workflows. No human editor reviewed the article before publication. Grandmonts Media remains responsible for the published content. Errors can be reported at office@grandmonts.cz.