A London High Court ruling has made it harder for thousands of Chinese investors who lost money in a major fraud to claim more than 61,000 Bitcoin seized by British authorities. Justice Mark Turner decided on Oct. 12 that Chinese law, rather than English property and trust law, must determine whether the investors have ownership rights in the cryptocurrency.
The Bitcoin is currently valued at approximately $5 billion, although the court has not decided who will ultimately receive it. The ruling resolves an important legal question but leaves the wider ownership dispute, including the claims of individual investors and the possible recovery rights of British prosecutors, for later proceedings.
According to CryptoSlate, the case developed from investment schemes operated by Zhimin Qian through Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology and related businesses between 2014 and 2017. The schemes raised about 40.23 billion yuan, equivalent to roughly £4.1 billion, through at least 128,409 investment contracts.
The court cautioned that the number of contracts should not be treated as the number of victims. Some participants received substantial repayments: around 34.1 billion yuan, or approximately £3.4 billion, was returned to investors while the scheme was operating. Other participants received nothing.
How the Bitcoin became part of the dispute
Qian converted part of the money raised through the schemes into Bitcoin. The court’s factual background says she bought more than 100,000 BTC through an account at the Huobi cryptocurrency exchange, as well as through over-the-counter transactions in China.
After leaving China in 2017, Qian moved to Britain. British authorities later seized electronic devices, private keys and other assets connected with more than 61,000 Bitcoin. The cryptocurrency then became part of civil recovery proceedings brought by Britain’s Director of Public Prosecutions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
The Chinese investors argued that English legal principles should allow them to trace their lost investments into the Bitcoin acquired with the proceeds. Their proposed route involved rescinding fraudulent investment contracts and establishing trust-based ownership interests that could follow the money as it was converted into cryptocurrency.
British prosecutors challenged that approach. They argued that the relevant transactions took place in China and that the investors’ alleged ownership rights were created, if at all, under Chinese law. Turner agreed that the case was overwhelmingly connected to China because the investors, alleged perpetrators, payments and Bitcoin purchases were all linked to the country.
The judge also rejected the idea that the Bitcoin’s later presence in Britain should determine which country’s property law applied. Instead, he focused on the legal relationships formed when the investments were collected and subsequently converted into cryptocurrency. His conclusion prevented the claimants from relying on English law, or combining English and Chinese principles, to establish their ownership claims at this stage.
Why losing money is not enough
The next phase of the litigation will examine whether Chinese law recognizes the investors’ asserted interests in the recovered Bitcoin. Under Section 281 of the UK Proceeds of Crime Act, a claimant must demonstrate a proprietary interest in assets subject to recovery proceedings. Showing that a criminal owes money, or that an investor suffered a financial loss, is not by itself sufficient.
Turner stressed that the legislation does not create a wider compensation scheme for people harmed by criminal conduct. As a result, claimants may need to show how Chinese law treats fraudulent investment contracts, whether any ownership rights survived the conversion of the funds into Bitcoin and whether those rights attach to the particular coins held by British authorities.
The structure of the scheme could make that process complicated. It involved numerous accounts, investment arrangements and repayments, meaning that investors may have different financial records and potentially different legal claims. The court has decided which country’s law applies, but it has not yet been given the evidence needed to establish the relevant content of Chinese law or the facts supporting each claimant’s alleged ownership.
The dispute also includes receivers appointed in connection with Tianjin Lantian Gerui at the initiative of one alleged victim. Those receivers have made separate claims over assets held by British prosecutors. Turner said the validity of that route would be considered at another time.
Lawyers representing the investors plan to appeal the ruling, according to the source report. Turner is also expected to hear further submissions on the order needed to implement his judgment. The court will then have to assess Chinese property rights and individual claims before determining which, if any, portions of the seized Bitcoin belong to successful applicants. The decision therefore removes one proposed legal pathway under English law, but does not settle the final distribution of the cryptocurrency.
Current market picture
Moneyiar market data at 20:49 on Oct. 13, 2026, put Bitcoin at $83,314.8884, up 0.36% over 24 hours but down 2.70% over seven days. Bitcoin ranked first by market capitalization in the supplied market data.
Solana was priced at $107.0765, down 1.38% in 24 hours and 11.52% over seven days, according to Moneyiar data at 20:48. AKEDO traded at $0.025123, up 4.55% over 24 hours and down 14.30% over seven days, while Mina stood at $0.074500, down 7.47% and 36.61% over those periods, respectively, based on Moneyiar data at 20:49 and 20:48.
