A High Court judge has ruled that Chinese law must determine whether victims of a major investment fraud are entitled to claim ownership of approximately 61,000 bitcoins seized in the United Kingdom, in a case involving cryptocurrency assets worth billions of pounds.
The decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Zhimin Qian & Anor concerns claims brought by Chinese investors seeking to establish a proprietary interest in Bitcoin recovered by UK authorities under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
Zhimin Qian, who has been described as the “Chinese Cryptoqueen”, operated fraudulent investment schemes in China between 2014 and 2017. Investors were reportedly encouraged to invest in digital currency ventures and other projects, including air-purification technology.
The schemes were conducted through Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology Co Limited and an entity known as Britain Nice Life Insurance Company. The former was registered in China, while the latter was described in the proceedings as a fictitious company.
Qian subsequently travelled to the UK using a false passport. In 2025, she received a prison sentence of 11 years and eight months after pleading guilty to money laundering offences.
The investors are reported to have contributed approximately £4.1 billion to the schemes. A substantial amount was returned through proceedings in China between 2014 and 2017. Before leaving China, Qian had converted part of the funds into Bitcoin.
Chinese authorities froze bank accounts associated with the companies in July 2017. UK law enforcement authorities later recovered substantial assets connected with the fraudulent activities, including approximately 61,000 bitcoins.
The victims sought to establish ownership rights over the cryptocurrency under section 281 of POCA, which provides a mechanism for third-party interests in property subject to confiscation proceedings to be determined.
They argued that English law should govern their claims because the Bitcoin was located in England. Their submissions also relied on principles of equity, including the potential rescission of investment agreements and the use of constructive trusts to establish an interest in the recovered assets.
The claimants further relied on legal principles concerning the tracing of property obtained through unlawful conduct, contending that they should be permitted to trace their investments into the Bitcoin now held in the UK.
A central issue was whether English law, Chinese law or a combination of the two should determine the investors’ alleged proprietary rights.
Mr Justice Turner considered the applicable rules of private international law, including the Rome I and Rome II Regulations as they apply in England and Wales, alongside relevant common-law principles.
The judge acknowledged that Bitcoin is recognised as property under the law of England and Wales, although its legal status differs across jurisdictions.
However, he concluded that the underlying dispute had a substantially stronger connection with China than with England. The alleged representations, the parties involved, the investment transactions and the immediate consequences of the wrongdoing were all centred in China.
The subsequent transfer of the Bitcoin to England was not sufficient to make English law the appropriate law for determining whether the victims owned the assets.
Accordingly, the question of proprietary ownership must first be resolved under Chinese law before the claimants can pursue recovery of the Bitcoin’s value through the relevant POCA proceedings.
The ruling highlights the legal challenges that arise when assets connected with alleged fraud are transferred across international borders. Although cryptocurrency can be seized and held in one jurisdiction, the law governing beneficial ownership or proprietary claims may depend on the circumstances in which the assets were originally acquired.
For victims seeking to recover funds from international investment fraud, the decision demonstrates the importance of establishing the applicable law before pursuing claims against assets recovered overseas. It also illustrates the interaction between UK proceeds-of-crime legislation, cryptocurrency property rights and the rules governing disputes with significant connections to more than one country.
The ruling determines which country’s law must be used to assess the victims’ ownership claims. It does not, by itself, finally determine who owns the 61,000 bitcoins or guarantee that the claimants will recover their value.
