China Prosecutors Seek $5.1B Bitcoin Seizure in UK Case

China Seeks Confiscation of $5.1 Billion in Bitcoin Seized in UK

Chinese prosecutors have formally applied to confiscate 61,896 Bitcoin, valued at approximately $5.1 billion at current market rates, that were seized from Zhimin Qian in the United Kingdom. A court in Tianjin has agreed to hear the case, according to a notice reported by the Chinese outlet The Paper.

Fundraising Fraud Allegations

The Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court announced on October 13 that it had accepted the application from the city’s prosecutors on September 28. The court stated there was evidence that Qian had engaged in fundraising fraud, primarily within Tianjin’s Hedong district.

Broader Asset Seizure

In addition to the Bitcoin, prosecutors are seeking the confiscation of approximately 72,746 units each of Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, and Bitcoin SV. The application also includes around 3.6 million XRP and an estimated 70 million Dogecoin, which UK authorities have already converted and placed in an interest-bearing account. The request further extends to U.S. dollar, euro, and pound sterling cash, jewelry, bank balances, and investment portfolios.

Alleged Scam Details

According to the prosecutors’ application, Qian was the controller of Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology. Between April 2014 and August 2017, she allegedly sold fraudulent wealth management products across China without a license, promising guaranteed returns. The scheme reportedly raised over 40.38 billion yuan. Prosecutors claim most of these funds were not used for legitimate business purposes, leaving more than 102,000 investors with losses totaling approximately 19.98 billion yuan.

Fugitive Status and Confiscation Rules

Qian fled China in July 2017, reportedly taking computers containing Bitcoin wallets, and eventually arrived in the UK, where she converted some of the cryptocurrency into other assets. Prosecutors contend that the seized assets are the proceeds of crime and should be recovered, returned to victims, and otherwise confiscated. As Qian has been a fugitive for over a year, Chinese law permits confiscation proceedings to proceed in her absence.

Victim Redress and Legal Proceedings

Victims have the option to apply to join the proceedings via a WeChat mini-program. However, those who do not will still be eligible to receive repayments from any recovered assets. The notice period for the case will run for six months, after which the court will commence hearings.

UK Legal Developments and Victim Compensation

Qian was sentenced to 11 years and eight months in prison in the UK in November 2025 after pleading guilty to acquiring and possessing criminal property. At the time of her sentencing, reports indicated that unnamed Treasury officials had privately considered whether the seized Bitcoin could help address a shortfall in the UK’s public finances. Legal experts also suggested that victims might be entitled to compensation if they could establish a sufficient link to the cryptocurrency.

Weeks after Qian’s guilty plea, UK prosecutors informed the High Court of their intention to establish a compensation scheme for victims, though details were not provided. They have since indicated that victims could be compensated through a redress scheme managed from China.

Governing Law Ruling

On October 12, the High Court ruled that Chinese law should govern the claims of thousands of victims to the seized coins. This decision was viewed as potentially improving the UK government’s chances of retaining the assets. Law firm Fieldfisher, representing the claimants, has stated its intention to appeal the ruling.

David Phillips, a dispute resolution partner at London law firm SMB, wrote on Wednesday that the ruling does not definitively determine ownership of the Bitcoin, as evidence on the specifics of Chinese law has not yet been presented. However, he noted that the decision suggests “a victim cannot necessarily recover cryptocurrency simply by proving: ‘That Bitcoin was bought with money taken from me.'” Phillips added that while “Cryptoassets may operate without borders, but proprietary rights in them remain capable of raising intensely territorial questions of applicable law.”