The money was taken by the fraudster and converted into Bitcoin. More than a decade later, Bitcoin has risen 200-fold, and the fraudster has also been caught.
Anyone in this position would inevitably think: surely this time the money can be recovered? And it is now worth far more than it was back then—can the excess also be counted as mine?
This is precisely the question that drew the most attention when the Qian Zhimin case made the news this time.
On October 12, 2026, the High Court of England and Wales ruled that the property rights asserted by Chinese investors over the Bitcoin at issue should be determined in accordance with Chinese law. Caixin reported on this basis that victims may have no share in the substantial appreciation: Qian Zhimin bought Bitcoin on the Huobi exchange in 2014 at an average price of approximately RMB 2,815 per coin, and it is now approximately RMB 540,000, roughly 200 times the average purchase price.
This figure is easy to get excited about, but unfortunately it is not yet the compensation multiple for victims.
The applicants had originally hoped to rely on English law to secure rights in the assets themselves. From the victims' perspective, what they paid out back then was real money, and the money was indeed later converted into coins. Now the coins have been found and have appreciated, but at the stage of distributing the money, the appreciated value may have nothing to do with them.
After the English ruling, new developments also emerged in China.
On October 13, the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court announced that it had accepted the procuratorate's application for confiscation of Qian Zhimin's illegal gains, involving assets including approximately 61,800 Bitcoin.
The case is in the United Kingdom—why apply Chinese law?
From 2014 to 2017, Qian Zhimin organized and carried out an investment fraud scheme in China, and part of the funds was converted into Bitcoin. She later fled to the United Kingdom, where the UK police seized the relevant assets during their investigation. In November 2025, she was sentenced to 11 years and 8 months' imprisonment for the relevant money-laundering offence.
But victims may not care about the criminal punishment she faces; what they care about is how assets including more than 61,000 Bitcoin will be handled. For victims, the hope brought by the rise in the coin price is very real: they had worried that the fraudster would have no money to compensate, but now the recovered assets may at least be valuable enough.
But having money available for distribution and how much one is legally entitled to receive are two different matters.
Key Timeline of the Qian Zhimin Case
There was previously a Foskett case in the United Kingdom. A purchaser paid money to buy land in Portugal; the purchase money was to be held by the recipient on an express trust, that is, held for the purchaser and used for the agreed purpose. However, GBP 20,440 of it was misappropriated to pay two premiums on a life insurance policy. After the insured died, the insurer paid out approximately GBP 1 million. The purchaser sought to share in the insurance proceeds in proportion to the premiums contributed, and the insurance beneficiary objected.
In 2000, the UK House of Lords upheld the purchaser's claim to share in the insurance proceeds in the corresponding proportion. They were able to claim the proceeds because they held a proprietary right in the original trust funds, and that right could be traced into the insurance proceeds. This also explains why the applicants in the Qian Zhimin case wish to assert a share of the assets. But whether a similar outcome can be achieved requires first establishing whether the rights they acquired when they paid the money can extend to the Bitcoin.
The victims naturally wish to recover the share of the assets that belongs to them, rather than merely recovering the CNY 100,000 they paid years later. This wish is entirely understandable. The legal difficulty is that it is necessary to prove, beyond "the assets were bought with my money," that "I still have rights in these assets."
The individual applicants in the Qian Zhimin case have taken precisely this path of asserting proprietary rights.
They applied under section 281 of the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), seeking to exclude assets lawfully belonging to them from the scope of the State's civil recovery.
Recovering Losses and Asserting a Share of the Assets
The purchasers in the Foskett case were able to share in the insurance proceeds on an important premise: the purchase money was originally held by the recipient on an express trust, and the purchasers held proprietary rights in that money.
In the Qian Zhimin case, the key stages of investment and conversion of funds took place in China. Investors were solicited in China, paid in RMB, the money entered Chinese accounts, and was then converted into Bitcoin.
To now establish whether a share of these coins belongs to the investors, it is necessary to look back at what rights arose when the money was paid. The money's arrival in the United Kingdom cannot directly transform the original investment relationship into a trust relationship of the kind in the Foskett case.
If, merely because the fraudster later came to the United Kingdom, all transaction relationships previously formed in China were governed by English law, the rights in the same investment could change depending on where the fraudster went. The English court in this instance did not accept the applicants' argument for the application of English substantive law or a mixed English-Chinese approach, but instead chose to apply Chinese law. This is a choice of governing law; it does not mean the case has been transferred to a Chinese court, and the English court continues to hear the civil recovery and related applications under its own procedures.
The victims' next step is to prove their rights under Chinese law, rather than continuing to discuss what remedies English law can offer. However, the ruling did not thereby find that all of them are left with nothing but a principal claim; the specific content of Chinese law and its effects remain for subsequent stages.
Why do reports say the victims may not receive the substantial appreciation? First, consider how domestic recovery of illicit gains and compensation to victims is commonly handled.
The Supreme People's Court provisions on the enforcement of the property-related portion of criminal judgments require, on the one hand, the recovery of property and proceeds formed by the investment of illicit funds, and on the other hand, provide that return or compensation to victims shall be calculated on the basis of the actual loss as determined in the criminal judgment. If the assets have risen in value, more property may be recovered; however, the amount of compensation, being based on actual loss, will not be calculated by multiplying the increase in the coin price.
Take the same assumption: 100,000 yuan was defrauded and the assets rose to 10 million yuan. If what you can assert is the loss of 100,000 yuan, then recovering 10 million yuan first means there are sufficient funds to pay compensation; it does not mean that the money owed to you has also become 10 million yuan. As for what other losses should also be compensated, there must be a corresponding legal basis. The market appreciation of Bitcoin cannot be directly treated as a new loss incurred by the victims.
To share in the appreciation, the applicant must further prove that a lawful share of the property in these coins belongs to them. If such a property right is established, what is sought is the value of the assets corresponding to that share, and only then can the appreciation potentially follow the share. This is why the applicant invoked the Foskett case and sought the application of English law. Now that the English court requires Chinese law to determine this property right, the argument that previously relied on English law to obtain an asset share has encountered a setback, and whether a basis under Chinese law can be found has become the key issue going forward.
However, the domestic rules on criminal compensation cannot directly decide for the English court how these coins are to be distributed.
Tianjin has initiated confiscation proceedings; can the money still be recovered?
According to a report by The Paper, the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court accepted on September 28 an application filed by the Second Branch of the Tianjin Municipal People's Procuratorate for confiscation of illegal gains. The property covered by the application includes 61,896.41552945 bitcoins, as well as other virtual assets, cash, jewelry and financial assets.
The procuratorate's application discloses that Qian Zhimin actually controlled Lantian Gerui and attracted funds through fraudulent wealth management products, causing investment losses to more than 102,000 fundraising participants. The prosecution asserts that the relevant illegal gains, converted property and fruits should be included in the recovery and, apart from the portion to be lawfully returned to the harmed fundraising participants, confiscation is sought. This is the procuratorate's application and allegation; the court has currently accepted the application and has not yet made a final confiscation ruling, still less is it an existing distribution plan.
Why is this procedure noteworthy? The Criminal Procedure Law provides for confiscation proceedings for illegal gains in cases where a criminal suspect or defendant has fled or died. Where the statutory conditions are met, the property may be adjudicated first, without having to wait until the ordinary criminal trial of the suspect is completed. This announcement corresponds to that special procedure. Qian Zhimin was sentenced in the United Kingdom for money laundering, which addresses a different issue from the handling of the property involved in the suspected fundraising fraud in China.
The word "confiscation" also cannot be understood to mean that all the victims' money is to be turned over to the state treasury. Article 300 of the Criminal Procedure Law excludes property to be lawfully returned to victims from confiscation, and the Tianjin procuratorate's application likewise preserves the portion to be returned to the harmed fundraising participants. What truly needs to be examined is which property should be recovered, which should be returned, which constitutes the remaining property subject to confiscation, and how each participant's loss is to be verified. Recovering assets, returning them to victims and confiscating the remaining property each have their own legal conditions.
If the Tianjin court accepts the case, will the coins in the United Kingdom automatically come back?
Cross-border assistance and asset transfer are still required. Articles 47 to 49 of the International Criminal Judicial Assistance Law set out the path for requesting confiscation and return of case-related property from a foreign state, including submitting requests, proof of ownership and legal documents, as well as negotiating the transfer of property. A domestic ruling may provide the legal documents and factual basis for subsequent requests; whether assistance can be obtained in the United Kingdom and how the matter dovetails with local recovery proceedings must still be handled in accordance with English law and the applicable assistance mechanisms. The domestic case acceptance cannot be directly described as the two countries having reached a return arrangement.
For victims, this means distinguishing between two types of claims: participating in the domestic liquidation and refund process, with a focus on proving their own investments and uncompensated losses; and, in the United Kingdom, seeking confirmation of a specific share of the Bitcoin, which also requires proving the basis of property rights under Chinese law and how those rights extend from the original investment funds to the seized assets. Transfer receipts can prove that the person paid money as a victim, but may not by themselves prove ownership of particular coins. Contractual terms, the receiving account, amounts already recovered, and records showing the conversion of funds into Bitcoin may all affect the determination. The two proceedings also require truthful disclosure of amounts already recovered, and the same loss must not be counted twice.
The announcement also provides a very practical piece of information: injured fundraising participants may apply to participate in the litigation through the WeChat mini-program "Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court Interested Parties Litigation Platform"; not participating in the litigation does not affect their ability to receive liquidation and refund funds from the recovered assets involved in the case. The announcement period is six months, after which the case will be heard in accordance with law. This domestic arrangement cannot be directly inferred to mean that no procedures are required for a UK application, nor can it guarantee that full compensation will necessarily be obtained after domestic registration.
For ordinary participants, what is most important at present is perhaps to clearly establish, under Chinese law, the basis of property rights and the flow of funds, and to organize records of investments, repayments, and prior liquidation and refunds. "Principal and interest" requires a specific basis; the returns promised by an illegal fundraising project cannot be directly treated as interest that should be compensated.
How much the coin price has risen is a matter of the asset's market performance; how much can be claimed in accordance with law is the question the law must resolve.
