Case Overview

On September 29, 2025, the largest Bitcoin money laundering case in global history by amount will return to court. Zhang Yadi (legal name Qian Zhimin, also known as Huahua) is represented by Roger Sahota of Berkeley Square Solicitors (BSQ). Public information on the firm’s official website states that Zhang Yadi “denies all allegations of money laundering” and contends that the Bitcoin seized by the authorities does not constitute “proceeds of crime.” In other words, the defendant has adopted a thoroughnot-guilty defensestance.

Image source: Berkeley Square Solicitors

 

Procedural Developments

In July 2024, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales formally accepted a winding-up petition againstLantian Gerui Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.(Winding-Up Petition, Case No. CR-2024-004069). Meanwhile, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has brought criminal charges against the relevant individuals for suspected money laundering and fraud, leading the criminal prosecution proceedings.

More critically, the Bitcoin assets involved in the case have been comprehensively frozen. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, enacted in the United Kingdom, amended the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), clarifying therecovery mechanism for crypto assets(POCA sections 303Z50–303Z51). This has directly altered the trajectory of the case:

  • Law enforcement authorities (the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the National Crime Agency (NCA), and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)) each have the authority to independently initiate civil recovery proceedings in the High Court to recover virtual assets derived from criminal conduct.

  • The courts no longer grapple with whether Bitcoin constitutes property; it has been statutorily recognized as a recoverable asset.

However, the situation regarding the appreciation in value of Bitcoin is considerably more complex:

  • If the UK courts elect to apply common law, they must rely on the principle of equitable tracing to establish a one-to-one correspondence between the victim’s initial investment and the currently frozen assets (including their appreciated value). Achieving this requires comprehensivefund flow tracing reportsto substantiate the claim.

  • If the evidence is insufficient, the court may decline to apply equitable tracing, in which case the scope of recoverable assets would revert to the framework under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), limited to the principal amount.

In other words, this case has entereda phase where criminal prosecution and asset recovery proceedings proceedin parallel, but whether the appreciated value can be recovered depends on whether sufficient evidence of fund flows can be disclosed during the criminal trial scheduled for September 29.

 

Introduction to Our UK Partner Law Firm

To maximize the likelihood of asset recovery, Mankun Law Firm has established a collaboration with a renowned commercial litigation law firm in the United Kingdom.

This firm has represented clients in numerous significantcross-border financial fraud and asset recovery casesbefore the High Court of England and Wales, the Court of Appeal, and major international arbitration institutions. It is recognized as a leading firm by The Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners, and was awarded “Litigation Boutique Firm of the Year” in 2025 byThe Lawyer"Annual Litigation Boutique Law Firm" Award.

This means that victims do not need to act alone; we ensure seamless coordination between our domestic team and top-tier UK law firms, directlyfacilitating cross-border judicial remedies.。

 

Our Strategy: Starting with a Test Case

Many victims are concerned: Given the scale of the case, will I incur substantial costs? With hundreds or even thousands of claimants filing together, will the process become chaotic?

Our answer is:It is not necessary for all claimants to “charge into battle” simultaneously; we begin with a test case.Within the English judicial system,test case is one of the most commonly used approaches for addressing mass victimization. We plan to adopt this model:

  • Representative Selection: Select one or a small number of victims with complete chains of evidence, substantial amounts, and clear transaction paths as plaintiffs, thereby avoiding the evidentiary confusion that may arise from collective filings.

  • Low-Cost Pilot Run: Use limited resources to first navigate the court procedures, confirm the applicable law, and determine how to enter the distribution process. This allows for rapid testing of the legal pathway under constrained resources.

  • Precedent Effect: Once the test case receives court approval, the judgment will serve as a precedent, allowing subsequent large-scale claims to directly apply the established framework, significantly reducing costs and uncertainty.

 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Does a freeze mean the crypto assets are permanently secure?

 A: No. A freeze is merely a temporary measure; future ownership depends on court judgments and claim filings. If no victims file claims, the court may rule that the assets belong to the state. In such cases, the UK Treasury would effectively act as a "one-click clearance master," converting the frozen assets directly into "state revenue."

Q2: Can I still file a claim if I do not have complete transfer records?

 A: Yes. Screenshots of transfers, exchange transaction records, chat logs, bank transfer records, and similar materials can all serve as evidence. We can assist in supplementing and corroborating any missing portions.

Q3: I am currently in China. Can I participate in the claims process in the United Kingdom?

 A: Absolutely. We will assist in preparing the necessary materials, and our cooperating UK law firm will liaise directly with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the courts. Victims are not required to travel to the UK in person.

Q4: Does filing a claim guarantee that I will recover my funds?

A: We cannot guarantee 100% recovery; however, participating in the claims process ensures your place in the judicial proceedings.

Q5: If the amount I invested is relatively small, is it still worth filing a claim?

A: Yes, it is worthwhile. Under the UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) framework, victims with smaller claims can also obtain opportunities for restitution through collective action.

In summary, the key points are as follows:

  • The crypto assets remain identifiable and have not disappeared;

  • Whether you can recover them depends on how promptly you act;

  • We have already established the necessary channels in the UK and are ready to assist you.

In light of the above, judicial proceedings are ongoing. Victims should submit transaction vouchers, transfer records, and other relevant materials as soon as possible; otherwise, they may miss future opportunities for restitution.

If you or your family members are involved in investments with Lantian Gerui, please contact us promptly to join the joint claim filing.