Bitcoin
Chinese prosecutors are seeking to confiscate more than 61,800 Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency holdings linked to a 40.38 billion yuan ($5.7 billion) investment fraud, intensifying a complex cross-border legal dispute over the ownership of assets seized in the United Kingdom. The case involves Qian Zhimin, who fled China after the alleged scheme collapsed and was later sentenced to 11 years and eight months in prison in Britain for money laundering offenses.
According to Chinese media reports, the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court accepted the confiscation application on September 28 and announced the proceedings on October 13. A six-month period has been opened for affected investors and other interested parties to participate in the process. The proposed recovery covers cryptocurrency, cash, jewelry, financial investments and other property believed to have been acquired using proceeds from the scheme.
In this story
2 assets
The case stems from an investment operation run through Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology, a company controlled by Qian. Between April 2014 and August 2017, the operation allegedly raised 40.378 billion yuan through unlicensed wealth management products that promised investors guaranteed principal repayments and unusually high returns.
Prosecutors said funds were used in part to repay earlier investors, finance fictitious projects and purchase cryptocurrency, real estate, vehicles and luxury goods. More than 102,000 investors reportedly suffered combined losses exceeding 19.9 billion yuan, leaving many unable to recover their original investments.
The assets identified in the Chinese proceedings include more than 61,800 BTC, over 72,700 Bitcoin Cash and more than 3.6 million XRP, along with Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin SV, Dogecoin and other holdings. Prosecutors are seeking the recovery of alleged illegal proceeds, property purchased with those proceeds and income generated from the assets, subject to applicable legal requirements and compensation arrangements.
Qian fled China in July 2017 as authorities investigated the operation. She later entered the United Kingdom using a St. Kitts and Nevis passport under the name Yadi Zhang. British investigators subsequently traced cryptocurrency holdings connected to the case as part of a wider inquiry into suspected criminal assets.
In 2018, searches of a London property and a safe deposit box led Metropolitan Police investigators to devices and private keys that provided access to substantial Bitcoin holdings. The investigation involved cooperation between British and Chinese law enforcement agencies. Qian was arrested in April 2024 and later pleaded guilty to money laundering offenses. She was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court on November 11, 2025, to 11 years and eight months in prison. Her associate Jian Wen received a six-year-and-eight-month sentence in 2024 for laundering cryptocurrency linked to the fraud.
The legal battle now extends beyond criminal liability to the question of who should ultimately receive the seized Bitcoin. In an October 12 judgment, the UK High Court ruled that Chinese law should govern the underlying ownership claims brought by victims seeking a share of the cryptocurrency. The court considered the fact that the investment transactions, alleged wrongdoing and acquisition of Bitcoin originated in China.
The ruling does not establish that individual investors own specific portions of the seized cryptocurrency, nor does it settle whether their claims can include gains generated by Bitcoin’s subsequent price appreciation. Approximately 16,000 victims have reportedly joined recovery proceedings in Britain, while lawyers representing some claimants are pursuing an appeal.
Under the UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, applicants seeking to prevent civil recovery must establish a legally recognized interest in the assets concerned. British authorities are separately pursuing civil recovery of the cryptocurrency, leaving the courts to address competing claims under the relevant legal frameworks.
The Chinese confiscation proceedings and the British recovery case therefore raise distinct but connected questions: how alleged criminal proceeds should be recovered, which jurisdiction’s law determines ownership, and how recovered assets should be distributed among victims. Investors who do not participate in the current Chinese proceedings are reportedly expected to retain eligibility for compensation from recovered assets, subject to the applicable rules.
The outcome could have important implications for large-scale cryptocurrency recovery cases involving multiple jurisdictions. Bitcoin’s appreciation since the assets were acquired may substantially affect the value at stake, but the legal entitlement of individual victims to the cryptocurrency or its gains remains unresolved. Until the courts settle those questions, the final distribution of the seized holdings remains uncertain.
