Chinese Prosecutors Move to Confiscate 61,800 Bitcoin (BTC) in $5.7 Billion Fraud Case

Tianjin Court Opens Confiscation Case

Chinese prosecutors have applied to confiscate more than 61,800 Bitcoin (BTC) and a long list of other assets tied to a 40.38 billion yuan, roughly $5.7 billion, investment fraud, and a court in Tianjin has formally taken the case. The Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court said on Oct. 13 that it had accepted an application to recover assets obtained through an illegal fundraising operation run between 2014 and 2017. Its docket shows the case was formally accepted on Sept. 28, a step that opened a six-month window for affected investors and other interested parties to join the confiscation proceedings. The scheme centered on Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology, a company controlled by Qian Zhimin that marketed investment products across several Chinese cities. Between April 2014 and August 2017 the firm raised 40.378 billion yuan through unlicensed wealth management products promising guaranteed principal repayment and returns as high as 300%. More than 102,000 investors took part, and the court's account of the case puts their combined losses at more than 19.9 billion yuan. Money that should have funded real businesses went instead to repaying earlier participants, financing fictitious investment projects and buying Bitcoin (BTC), real estate, vehicles and luxury goods. The assets identified for confiscation cover more than 61,800 BTC, over 72,700 Bitcoin Cash and more than 3.6 million XRP, alongside Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin SV, Dogecoin and other holdings, plus cash, jewelry and financial investments. Prosecutors want the illegal proceeds, anything bought with them and the income those assets generated, subject to amounts returned to investors under applicable law. Investors who stay out of the proceedings keep their eligibility for compensation from whatever is recovered. At the current Bitcoin price, the seized stack alone is worth multiples of its original cost, one reason two courts are now fighting over its fate.

From Tianjin to a London Safe Deposit Box

Qian left China in July 2017 as investigators closed in, carrying a computer with access to cryptocurrency wallets. She entered Britain on a St. Kitts and Nevis passport under the name Yadi Zhang, where, investigators said, she and associates converted cryptocurrency into cash, property and other assets. British tracing began in 2018 after intelligence about suspected criminal assets, and searches of a London property and a safe deposit box in October and November that year turned up devices and private keys giving access to substantial seized Bitcoin holdings. A stash of that size ranks among the largest crypto whale positions ever linked to a criminal case. Qian was arrested in April 2024 after an investigation involving British and Chinese law enforcement. Her associate Jian Wen was sentenced to six years and eight months in 2024 for laundering cryptocurrency linked to the fraud. Qian pleaded guilty to money laundering offenses in September 2025 and received 11 years and eight months at Southwark Crown Court on Nov. 11. Ownership is a separate fight. In an Oct. 12 judgment, High Court Justice Mark Turner ruled that Chinese law should govern the underlying ownership claims of victims seeking a share of the coins, because the investment transactions, the alleged wrongdoing and the Bitcoin (BTC) purchases all took place in China. About 16,000 victims have joined the British recovery proceedings, where their claims remain unresolved. Under Section 281 of Britain's Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, applicants must establish a legal ownership interest in assets targeted for civil recovery. The October ruling did not decide whether individual investors are entitled to the coins, or whether any recovery should include gains from appreciation. Lawyers for some victims are pursuing an appeal, with further hearings expected to examine how Chinese law applies and what evidence supports individual claims, while British prosecutors separately pursue civil recovery under the same act.

Two Recovery Tracks, One Stash

Our reading of the two dockets is that they run on parallel tracks and could collide. China's confiscation case treats the assets as illegal gains, while the British civil recovery must first settle who owns them. The choice of Chinese law cuts both ways for victims: it points them to a system they may know better, but leaves their property claims untested until further hearings and a possible appeal. Whoever ends up controlling 61,800 coins also faces the same question that hangs over any strategic Bitcoin reserve: liquidate or hold. A sale of that scale would test crypto exchange liquidity, and a hold would make a state one of the market's largest custodians. Until the six-month window closes and the appeal is heard, the coins' fate sits with two courts in two countries.