About 16,000 Chinese claimants are seeking a share of more than 61,000 seized Bitcoin. They must prove rights to the assets under Chinese law, not only show losses from the fraud.
On Oct. 12, 2026, Justice Mark Turner ruled that Chinese law will govern investors' claims to more than 61,000 Bitcoin worth about $5 billion. The High Court of England and Wales issued the decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Zhimin Qian. It does not decide who owns the coins or what share, if any, will go to victims. Caixin Global reported that the ruling sets the law for the ownership claims. Individual claims and the final disposition remain for a later stage.
For investors, proof of fraud losses does not by itself establish a proprietary claim to Bitcoin bought with the proceeds. The High Court must still assess whether each claimant can show legal rights to assets held by British authorities.
About 16,000 Chinese claimants have filed applications in the UK recovery process. The underlying record refers to at least 128,409 investment contracts, a count that does not establish how many individual victims there were.
The court has set the legal test, but left ownership unresolved.
Turner rejected the investors' argument that English property and trust principles should determine whether they could trace their investments into Bitcoin acquired by Qian. He treated the fraud and investment contracts as predominantly connected to China. Payments were made there, as were the initial Bitcoin purchases. The coins' later presence in Britain did not make English property law controlling.
The ruling addresses which law governs the claims, not the ultimate distribution of the cryptocurrency. The Director of Public Prosecutions brought civil recovery proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Investors intervened to assert ownership rights in assets targeted for recovery. English law provides the procedural framework in the UK court; Chinese law governs the ownership question.
Section 281 requires claimants to establish a proprietary interest in the assets. Turner said the provision does not create a general compensation scheme for people who have suffered criminal losses. A claim for repayment differs from a claim that particular Bitcoin belongs to an investor. The court has not decided whether any claimant has the required interest. Nor has it ruled on forfeiture or the Bitcoin's eventual disposition.
Qian's schemes operated through Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology and associated businesses from 2014 to 2017. The agreed factual background records about 40.23 billion yuan, roughly £4.1 billion, raised through at least 128,409 investment contracts. About 34.1 billion yuan, or approximately £3.4 billion, was repaid to investors. Qian, also known as Yadi Zhang, used money from the scheme to buy Bitcoin that later came under the control of British authorities.
Qian converted some proceeds into Bitcoin. The judgment records purchases of more than 100,000 BTC through an account at Huobi. She also made over-the-counter purchases in China. After leaving China in 2017 and moving to Britain, she became the subject of an investigation in which authorities seized devices. They also took control of private keys and other assets linked to more than 61,000 Bitcoin.
The investors argued that they could rescind fraudulent contracts and that trust-based interests would follow the money into cryptocurrency. Prosecutors said the relevant dealings took place in China. Turner accepted that the investors and the alleged fraud were overwhelmingly connected to China. The payments and Bitcoin purchases were tied to the country as well. He rejected the claim that English tracing principles could establish ownership of the coins. Their later location in Britain did not determine which law applied.
A separate report on crypto laundering enforcement described U.S. authorities freezing assets and disrupting cashout networks after the Bybit heist. This UK case turns on a separate issue: who has a legal interest in recovered coins.
The next stage will require evidence about Chinese law and the circumstances of each claimant. The court has not determined whether that law recognizes the interests investors assert. It also has not decided whether any rights survived conversion into Bitcoin or attach to specific coins held by British authorities. The parties must establish the content of Chinese law before the court can assess individual ownership claims.
Claims may differ because the scheme involved multiple investment arrangements. Bank accounts and repayments also form part of the record. A participant who received some money back may have a different claim history from one who received nothing. The court will weigh those circumstances against the legal basis for asserting ownership.
The gap between the original losses and the Bitcoin's current value also matters. Recognizing an interest in the assets could raise questions about their appreciation, but the ruling did not decide whether claimants can recover that increase. Any eventual value will depend on the Bitcoin price and the timing of a sale or distribution.
Turner also rejected an alternative argument that English law should apply unless and until Chinese law was formally established. He distinguished the choice of governing law from the evidence needed to prove what that foreign law provides. Receivers appointed to Tianjin Lantian Gerui have made separate claims to assets held by prosecutors. Turner left the validity of that route for another proceeding.
Victims' lawyers plan to appeal, according to the Financial Times. Turner is due to hear further submissions on the order implementing his ruling. The court has not set out a final allocation of the Bitcoin.
A proprietary claim concerns rights in a specific asset, rather than only a right to seek repayment from a debtor. In a pooled fraud, recovered cryptocurrency may have passed through multiple accounts and investments before conversion. A claimant must establish a legal connection to the recovered property under the governing law. The recovery process therefore may not divide seized assets in proportion to each person's reported loss.
