- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
A Chinese court has accepted a request to confiscate 61,800 Bitcoin that British authorities seized from Qian Zhimin, who is accused of running a scheme that allegedly took 40.4 billion yuan (about $5.7 billion) from more than 102,000 investors. The move sets China against the UK over who controls the coins and how victims get paid.
Chinese prosecutors are seeking to confiscate more than 61,800 Bitcoin (BTC) connected to an alleged $5.7 billion investment fraud, bringing a major Fraud case back into focus for cryptocurrency investors.
The proceedings, reported on October 22, 2026, concern digital assets seized by British authorities and funds allegedly raised from more than 102,000 investors in China between 2014 and 2017.
According to reports, the case centers on Qian Zhimin and Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology, a company accused of selling unauthorized wealth-management products that promised investors guaranteed principal repayment and exceptionally high returns.
The company allegedly collected approximately 40.378 billion yuan, equivalent to around $5.7 billion. Investors reportedly suffered combined losses approaching 20 billion yuan.
On October 13, Tianjin’s Second Intermediate People’s Court confirmed that it had accepted prosecutors’ application to confiscate assets considered proceeds of illegal activity.
The proceedings provide a six-month window for affected investors and other eligible parties to participate in the recovery process.
Investigators allege that the investment operation attracted customers by offering financial products with guaranteed principal repayment and unusually high potential returns.
Instead of directing the money into legitimate commercial ventures as investors might have expected, the company allegedly used the funds to repay earlier participants, support fictitious projects and acquire assets.
Authorities also identified other cryptocurrencies and conventional assets, including property, vehicles, cash, jewelry and investment holdings.
Qian reportedly left China in 2017 before later settling in the United Kingdom. British authorities subsequently seized cryptocurrency and other property connected to the investigation.
The recovery effort has therefore expanded beyond the original allegations into an international dispute over who legally owns the assets. This Fraud case now involves the interests of Chinese authorities, British law enforcement and investors seeking compensation for their losses.
The legal distinction matters because confiscating property believed to represent criminal proceeds is not necessarily the same as returning that property directly to individual victims.
Authorities must establish which assets can lawfully be recovered and how any recovered value should be distributed.
The Chinese confiscation proceedings come shortly after a UK High Court ruling concerning the Bitcoin seized in Britain. According to the report, the court determined that Chinese law should govern the assessment of victims’ alleged ownership rights over the cryptocurrency.
Although the assets have been identified and seized, the legal process must still establish whether particular investors have enforceable property rights over the Bitcoin or an entitlement to compensation from the recovered proceeds.
The proceedings also demonstrate why international cooperation is important in cryptocurrency investigations. Digital assets can move across borders rapidly, while the laws governing ownership, confiscation and restitution differ between jurisdictions.
The case could have implications beyond the victims and defendants involved. A cryptocurrency holding exceeding 61,800 BTC is substantial enough to attract market attention, particularly if a future court decision changes how the assets are controlled or disposed of.
However, investors should distinguish between a legal seizure and an actual sale. The confiscation application does not, by itself, establish that the Bitcoin will be sold on the open market. Nor does it confirm a timetable for liquidation or distribution to victims.
If the assets are eventually sold, the timing, method and scale of any disposal could become relevant to market participants. A large transaction may attract attention from traders monitoring exchange liquidity, institutional holdings and potential selling pressure.
The actual market impact would depend on how the assets are handled, prevailing liquidity and broader market conditions.
The Fraud case also reinforces the importance of evaluating investment offers carefully. Promises of guaranteed principal and extraordinary returns should be treated with caution, especially when a company cannot provide independently verifiable information about its business model, licensing and financial performance.
The proceedings offer a reminder that blockchain-based assets are not beyond the reach of law enforcement. They can be traced, seized and contested in court, while recovering their value for victims remains a separate and potentially lengthy challenge.
Copyright © 2025 - The Bit Gazette.
