61,000 Seized BTC: Who Deserves the Billions in Gains?

[Felicity_Tide]

1. Should the victims receive the Bitcoin itself since it was their money that was stolen after all?
2. If not, then at least should they receive some compensation on top of their original investment, such as interest?

Yes, they should receive their money, but considering the fact that this is actually an international matter, it might just be a bit complicated if the UK government decides to handle the refund process by itself. Of course, those victims who were scammed can come forward with their proof of payment to the specific scamming operation, but I think the Chinese government could handle the direct refunds more easily. But again, with the uncertainty surrounding Bitcoin regulations in China, who knows if the funds will actually reach the victims?.

But another interesting question is if option #2 is followed, and the victims are compensated in fiat, there could still be a huge amount remaining, who should keep the remaining balance, which could be worth billions? Would it be the UK government that seized the Bitcoin, or China where the original scam happened?

If all parties decide to be transparent and fair, the victims should receive every single penny. But again, I don't think any government can be fair to such an extent especially when such a massive amount of money is involved.

[MusaMohamed]

Yes, they should receive their money, but considering the fact that this is actually an international matter, it might just be a bit complicated if the UK government decides to handle the refund process by itself. Of course, those victims who were scammed can come forward with their proof of payment to the specific scamming operation, but I think the Chinese government could handle the direct refunds more easily. But again, with the uncertainty surrounding Bitcoin regulations in China, who knows if the funds will actually reach the victims?.

The Chinese government want to take as most money as they can from companies and citizens, while laws, regulations, and enforcement in China are not too good for benefits of commercial companies and citizens. It's more realistic to forget expectation that Chinese government with their massive power will not do refund, delivery to victims.

That government even do worse things like set up laws and regulations to milk money in China mainland and if they act like this, if you are a citizen, you will want something safe rather than trying to make noise, suing the government there and in return you will more likely receive no refund but severe legal and financial issues.

[macson]

1. Should the victims receive the Bitcoin itself since it was their money that was stolen after all?

From the start, Zhimin Qian was running a Ponzi scheme, then converted the money into Bitcoin and fled before being arrested. So, from the start, the investors invested in Yuan, not Bitcoin. So why should they get the Bitcoin? They should have received their initial investment in Yuan.

2. If not, then at least should they receive some compensation on top of their original investment, such as interest?

Maybe they could get some interest from their money, but it probably wouldn't be that much. But compensation in the form of money equal to their investment with interest is more than enough, I think. If they were to ask for more, it would be a sign of greed, given the significant rise in Bitcoin's price.

But another interesting question is if option #2 is followed, and the victims are compensated in fiat, there could still be a huge amount remaining, who should keep the remaining balance, which could be worth billions? Would it be the UK government that seized the Bitcoin, or China where the original scam happened?

From what I've read, if it uses Chinese law, then the profits are very likely to go to the British government. But I don't think it will be that easy --- the Chinese government also doesn't want to lose out in this matter, so it's possible that they will also ask for a share of the profits.

[lionheart78]

Just for clarification, the ruling does not mean that the UK government will keep the Bitcoin, the court has only decided that Chinese law should apply to the victims' claims. Who will ultimately receive the Bitcoin has not been decided yet. So here's the interesting question. Since the value has increased significantly.

1. Should the victims receive the Bitcoin itself since it was their money that was stolen after all?
2. If not, then at least should they receive some compensation on top of their original investment, such as interest?

This is somehow complicated.  It was said that the funds taken were in fiat currency and not Bitcoin, and then these funds bought BTC.  Since the funds is converted to BTC, can the government trace the amount of BTC to each particular investor?  If it can't be traced, then possibly monetary compensation will do.  Returning the invested money to each Bitcoin, plus probably some compensation.

If the things is done with what I stated above, it would be a huge profit for the UK government and probably the Chinese government.

[Hamza2424]

What if BTC dumps again? Well, it won't dump to the same levels, that's for sure, but then who will bear the loss or the difference caused by the volatility? But let's say, under an extreme scenario, would these victims demand BTC or the equivalent amount of fiat?

Well, so far, I also can't say anything with strong points because the whole case looks like a stretch, and they won't even pay anything this year. Maybe they are doing this to stretch it further, and then, with time, they will make their relations with China better or worse. They will use some political play here because the money involved is huge.

[stompix]

1. Should the victims receive the Bitcoin itself since it was their money that was stolen after all?

From the start, Zhimin Qian was running a Ponzi scheme, then converted the money into Bitcoin and fled before being arrested. So, from the start, the investors invested in Yuan, not Bitcoin. So why should they get the Bitcoin? They should have received their initial investment in Yuan.

Because OP opened a topic without having a clue what this whole thing is about!
Just as anyone on this forum rushing to fish some merits, he opened one thinking it's such a great idea and then when he gets corrected, starts crying like a little kid!

The whole thing is pure idiocy, what if the scammer had invested in EOS? Would they have to pay back the victims in EOS now?  
Imagine a thief steals your car
- the car is worth $10 000
- the thief only gets $2000 from a shady shop for it
- he hits the casino and wins $50 000

How much would you get, $10 000, $2000 or $50 000?

Okay, I will ^^^

You can ignore people, but you can't ignore stupidity, not on this level as it reeks sky-high!

[yhiaali3]

In my opinion, the victims have the right to have their Bitcoin assets returned to them after all these years of waiting. This is their right and these are their assets, even if their value has increased tens of times.

But given the complexities of the case, if I were in the victims' place, I would accept any compensation I receive. In the end, a person should not be greedy and should be happy to get their money back after all those years, after they thought it was lost forever.

[Ziskinberg]

This is somehow complicated.  It was said that the funds taken were in fiat currency and not Bitcoin, and then these funds bought BTC.  Since the funds is converted to BTC, can the government trace the amount of BTC to each particular investor?  If it can't be traced, then possibly monetary compensation will do.  Returning the invested money to each Bitcoin, plus probably some compensation.

They cannot trace the Bitcoins directly to the victims since the victims did not invest Bitcoin, but it should not be that hard to return the money as they have probably already determined the total amount lost in the scam.
My point is that if all those 61k Bitcoins were purchased using the proceeds of the scam, then the victims should have ownership rights over those Bitcoins.

Why should the government own Bitcoin that was not purchased with its own money, maybe it should only be entitled to the remaining balance that no victims have claimed.

If the things is done with what I stated above, it would be a huge profit for the UK government and probably the Chinese government.

Yes, if they will keep it.

What if BTC dumps again?

You raise a good point, because what if the total value of those Bitcoins was already lower than the amount lost in the scam..

Would the government cover the deficit and compensate the victims for the remaining losses?  
Of course not, so if they cannot refund the losses, they also should not be entitled with the gains.

In my opinion, the victims have the right to have their Bitcoin assets returned to them after all these years of waiting. This is their right and these are their assets, even if their value has increased tens of times.

They don't necessarily have the right to the Bitcoins because they invested fiat, so they may only be entitled to compensation in fiat.
I just brought up the possibility that they should receive the Bitcoin if the country making the final decision does what is right instead of being greedy.

From what I've read, if it uses Chinese law, then the profits are very likely to go to the British government. But I don't think it will be that easy --- the Chinese government also doesn't want to lose out in this matter, so it's possible that they will also ask for a share of the profits.

You mentioned profits, what particular Chinese law says that the government can keep the gains from the confiscated Bitcoins when there are identified victims claiming the amount they lost?


Just to clarify, I'm not saying the victims should be paid in Bitcoin, what I'm pointing out is that they should receive the proceeds from selling the Bitcoin at its current price.

Because obviously it's not hard to understand how gains are realized, only when a sale takes place.

[FinneysTrueVision]

If the victims are compensated for their original investment, which was denominated in fiat, then the remaining BTC should be treated like any other asset seizure. According to what the law says, I guess that would mean that the UK government gets to keep it and they may go on to sell it.

The investors don’t really have a claim on the scammer’s seized property, even if that property was purchased with their invested funds. They are only entitled to what they’re owed.

[Ziskinberg]

The investors don’t really have a claim on the scammer’s seized property, even if that property was purchased with their invested funds. They are only entitled to what they’re owed.

Are you sure about that? Because the law does not say so..

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/section/281


Based on my understanding, if those victims can prove that the money they invested was converted into Bitcoin, then they may have a claim to ownership of those Bitcoins, but they still need to establish their legal ownership rights, and the court will ultimately decide.

[FinneysTrueVision]

The investors don’t really have a claim on the scammer’s seized property, even if that property was purchased with their invested funds. They are only entitled to what they’re owed.

Are you sure about that? Because the law does not say so..

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/section/281

What the UK law says shouldn’t matter if the ruling was that Chinese law applies to the victims’ recovery. That’s what the dispute was all about. Chinese investors wanted UK laws to apply so they would benefit from Bitcoin’s appreciation, while UK prosecutors preferred Chinese law, which only entitles victims to principal plus interest. In the end, the High Court has ruled in favor of applying Chinese law.

Here is the summary from Kucoin: "On October 13, 2026, a UK High Court ruled that Chinese investors in the Qian Zhimin case must rely on Chinese law to claim their share of over 61,000 bitcoins. Approximately 16,000 victims may recover only their principal and interest, forfeiting gains from bitcoin’s 200-fold price increase. The UK Director of Public Prosecutions supported the application of Chinese law, while investors advocated for UK law."

[m2017]

There's a new development regarding the 61,000 BTC seized by UK authorities.
This is related to the massive investment fraud in China, which was already reported in the previous threads I attached at the bottom.

And according to the report, the UK High Court has ruled that Chinese law should govern the victims' claims to recover their lost funds.

What's actually interesting here is that the value of Bitcoin has already increased significantly. Here's the price history of these Bitcoins.

I like this news, as it clearly demonstrates how regulators "look out" for citizens - even if, in this specific instance, the citizens in question belong to another country. I have previously raised the issue of regulators confiscating illicitly obtained assets from bad actors, while questioning whether those assets are actually returned to their original owners (though identifying those owners can often be difficult). This news story serves as a prime example.

1. Should the victims receive the Bitcoin itself since it was their money that was stolen after all?

They should. But whether they actually get it - that’s a whole different story.

2. If not, then at least should they receive some compensation on top of their original investment, such as interest?

If you’re going to strip the original owners of their crypto assets, then you should strip them of everything. What kind of interest? No, of course not.

But another interesting question is if option #2 is followed, and the victims are compensated in fiat,

Why on earth? Let them return the assets that were confiscated (bitcoin to bitcoin).

there could still be a huge amount remaining,

It looks like two governments will now be at each other's throats over the right to wrest crypto assets away from their original owners (now that they have become valuable). Is this really how a regulator ought to look out for its citizens?

who should keep the remaining balance, which could be worth billions? Would it be the UK government that seized the Bitcoin, or China where the original scam happened?

As usual, whoever is "stronger" is "right" - and will take the spoils.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

1. Should the victims receive the Bitcoin itself since it was their money that was stolen after all?

In a very fair system which is rarely applicable, the government ought to give them back their coins, hopefully after deducting their bounty costs and tax if applicable. The coins belongs to those people, the new value should be their ROI over the years. I believe it is robbery for the government to keep any share of it, the government steals a lot legally and I would not be surprised if they decide to keep the profits and only return the fiat equivalent, although it would really be unfair to those affected.

[stadus]

1. Should the victims receive the Bitcoin itself since it was their money that was stolen after all?

In a very fair system which is rarely applicable, the government ought to give them back their coins, hopefully after deducting their bounty costs and tax if applicable. The coins belongs to those people, the new value should be their ROI over the years.

First, the Bitcoins did not originally belong to the victims as it was Chinese yuan that was stolen from them through a fraudulent investment scheme (Ponzi scheme) operated by Zhimin Qian and her associates. It's just a debate over whether they will receive the original amount they lost, or the current value of the Bitcoins that were purchased using the proceeds of the scam.

This will be a long debate, but what is certain is that the seized Bitcoins are currently worth more than enough to cover the victims' estimated original losses.

[Faisal2202]

This is an incredible act of international fair play from the UK if they're going to let the Chinese court handle the recouping of victims while the BTC remains at the custody of the UK government. I highly doubt other countries would have acted in such way. 5 billion hot cash can literally fill so many holes, but UK court acted incredibly fairly and didn't let anyone take advantage of other people's money. American for instance likes to boast about their justice system, but surely they wouldn't have done this for china.

I can't agree more. It's an anomaly that the UK is giving such power to China while the US would never have done it. They want to control what's already in their possession, and they will process every claim rather than giving another country the power to manage it.

Well, I won't speak for their justice system on this because that's a different and very broad discussion, but to some extent, I agree with you.

[retreat]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/section/281
Based on my understanding, if those victims can prove that the money they invested was converted into Bitcoin, then they may have a claim to ownership of those Bitcoins, but they still need to establish their legal ownership rights, and the court will ultimately decide.

Hasn't the UK court already decided that Chinese law applies in this case? So we probably don't need to discuss UK law in this case.

However, in a judgment on Monday, Mr Justice Mark Turner of the London High Court sided with U.K. authorities, ruling that because the underlying fraud occurred entirely in China, Chinese law, and not English law, must govern the victims' property claims.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2026/10/13/u-k-court-ruling-boosts-government-s-chances-of-keeping-gbp3-8-billion-seized-bitcoin

But this issue is actually a debate for legal experts, not us Bitcoin forum users. So yeah, whoever ends up receiving such a huge appreciation, they're really lucky.