Chinese prosecutors are seeking to confiscate more than 61,800 Bitcoin tied to a $5.7 billion fraud scheme, CoinDesk reports, citing coverage by Chinese outlet The Paper. The move comes days after a UK High Court ruled that Chinese law should govern victims' claims to the coins, which remain in British custody.
The case centers on Qian Zhimin, the alleged controller of Tianjin Lantian Gree Electronic Technology. Prosecutors say that from 2014 to 2017 the company sold unlicensed wealth‑management products across China, promising guaranteed principal and high returns. The scheme raised more than 40.378 billion yuan from over 102,000 investors, who collectively lost nearly 20 billion yuan.
According to the indictment, the money was not used to fund real businesses. Instead, prosecutors say it was used to repay earlier participants (a classic Ponzi rotation), finance fake investment projects, and purchase Bitcoin, property, cars, and jewelry. Qian fled China in 2017 and later settled in the UK, where British authorities seized his assets. The haul included the 61,800 BTC plus Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin SV, Ripple, Dogecoin, cash, jewelry, and other investment holdings.
Two courts, one stash
On Oct. 13, Tianjin's Second Intermediate People's Court announced that it had accepted prosecutors' request to confiscate the assets as illegal gains. The court opened a six‑month period for victims and other interested parties to join the case. Victims who do not participate can still seek refunds from any recovered assets.
That decision followed the UK High Court ruling that Chinese law, rather than English law, should govern victims' claims to the more than 61,000 BTC seized in Britain. The ruling does not end the possibility of recovery; it simply shifts the legal question to whether victims have a property claim under Chinese law. Lawyers for some victims are already seeking to appeal.
What to watch
CoinDesk notes that the Bitcoin stash could be worth far more today than when it was seized, given the rise in cryptocurrency prices since the assets were frozen. If the assets are eventually liquidated at current market values, the recovery pool could be larger than initially expected. Full recovery for all investors would be unusual in a Ponzi unwind, and the outcome may hinge on the fact that the proceeds were held in Bitcoin rather than spent.
The jurisdictional tangle remains complex: the coins sit in Britain, the victims are in China, and the UK court has deferred to Chinese law while a Tianjin court runs a six‑month claims window. Investors who were part of the scheme will need to navigate Chinese legal processes to seek restitution.
An open question is what the Chinese authorities will do with 61,800 BTC if the confiscation is confirmed. The source does not specify a plan, and any speculation would be premature. However, a state that has banned crypto trading ending up with a large Bitcoin holding is a development worth monitoring.