A ruling handed down by the High Court of England and Wales on October 12 has resolved a preliminary but pivotal question in one of the largest cryptocurrency seizures ever recorded: whether ownership claims over more than 61,000 seized Bitcoin will be judged under Chinese or English law. The answer is Chinese law. What the judgment does not do—expressly—is decide who ultimately receives the holdings.

Instead, the ruling in Director of Public Prosecutions v Zhimin Qian & Anor [2026] EWHC 2509 (KB) sets out the legal test that claimants must meet before the court can determine whether any of the Bitcoin, or property representing it, belongs to them under the United Kingdom's civil-recovery regime, the process by which the state can seek to recover property obtained through unlawful conduct. No Bitcoin has been awarded to victims or to the UK state, and any final decision on recovery, compensation or disposal will come only after the ownership claims themselves are assessed.

The Court Decided the Legal Framework, Not Ownership

In the case, Mr Justice Turner considered claims from people who say they lost money in investment schemes operated in China between 2014 and 2017. According to the agreed factual background set out in the judgment, the schemes ran in China, the alleged victims were Chinese nationals living in China at the time they invested, and their payments were made through Chinese banks or in cash. Some of the proceeds were later converted into Bitcoin before Zhimin Qian left China in 2017.

London's Metropolitan Police seized devices and keys linked to the Bitcoin in 2018. The assets now held within the UK proceedings include more than 61,000 BTC, which contemporaneous market reporting valued at roughly $5 billion.

The applicants asked the court to apply English law—or a combination of English and Chinese law—to support their claims that they retained an interest in the Bitcoin. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that Chinese law governed. The court sided with the DPP.

Why Chinese Law Applies to the Victims' Claims

The dispute was not about whether can qualify as property under English law; the judgment records that this point was not contested. The question was which country's law determines whether the alleged victims acquired, or retained, rights in the money that was later converted into Bitcoin. This kind of question is known as choice of law: it decides which legal system's property rules the court will apply to the substance of the claims.

Justice Turner found that the relevant connections were overwhelmingly Chinese: the alleged misrepresentations, the investment arrangements, the payments, the parties and the immediate losses were all centred there. The subsequent movement of the Bitcoin and related assets into England, the court held, did not change the law governing rights said to have arisen from the original transactions.

That conclusion matters because the applicants cannot rely simply on the fact that the Bitcoin now sits within the jurisdiction of the English court. They must establish, under Chinese law, that they hold rights capable of satisfying the ownership requirement in Section 281 of the Proceeds of Crime Act. That provision is not a general compensation scheme for everyone harmed by criminal conduct. It allows a person to seek a declaration only where they can show that the property in question—or property it represents—belongs to them. A claim against the fraudsters for repayment alone is not enough.

What the Ruling Changes in the Civil-Recovery Case

The judgment removes English law as the substantive basis for the applicants' ownership arguments. English law will still govern the procedure through which the High Court considers those claims under the Proceeds of Crime Act, but the underlying proprietary rights must be assessed under Chinese law.

The court has not yet heard evidence on the content of Chinese law, nor on the evidential basis of each individual claim. Those questions will determine whether any applicant can show that they retained a proprietary interest in the seized assets. For that reason, the ruling does not settle the ultimate destination of the Bitcoin. A later stage must address the applicants' rights before the court can decide what portion of the property, if any, falls outside the civil-recovery process.

In short:

• Decided: Chinese law governs the substantive ownership rights asserted by the applicants.
• Still to be decided: Whether Chinese law gives any applicant a proprietary interest in the seized Bitcoin.
• Not authorised by this judgment: A transfer of the Bitcoin to victims, the Treasury or any buyer.

Why Seizure Does Not Mean an Immediate Bitcoin Sale

According to the Metropolitan Police's official announcement, which describes the case as involving the world's largest cryptocurrency seizure, Qian pleaded guilty in September 2025 to acquiring and possessing criminal property. The case also involves civil-recovery proceedings, which can continue separately from the criminal conviction. Control of the assets is only one stage of that process.

The court must still resolve valid third-party claims before it can reach a final position on recovery and distribution. Only after that would any authority need to decide whether the assets should be retained, used for compensation, or disposed of.

The distinction is especially significant in crypto cases, where assets can remain under court control for years while ownership and tracing issues are litigated. As other crypto recovery cases have demonstrated, a seizure does not automatically produce a quick return of funds to victims.

Bitcoin's Price Rise Raises the Stakes, but Not the Legal Answer

The value of the seized Bitcoin has risen sharply since the underlying fraud and the 2018 seizure, making the ownership dispute far more consequential in monetary terms. But a higher market price does not itself determine who holds a proprietary claim to the holdings.

The next stage will turn on a narrower question: whether the applicants can prove that Chinese law gives them rights in the funds that were converted into Bitcoin, and whether those rights can support declarations under Section 281. Until that question is resolved, the more than 61,000 BTC should be viewed as disputed assets within an ongoing legal process—not as confirmed government-owned Bitcoin awaiting sale.

What Happens Next

• Chinese law must be pleaded and proved: The court has said that evidence on its content has not yet been presented.
• Individual claims must be assessed: Applicants will need to establish the factual and legal basis for their asserted property rights.
• The court must determine the effect on civil recovery: That will decide whether any property is excluded from recovery because it belongs to an applicant.
• A later order would be needed for any allocation or disposal: The October 12 ruling does not make that decision.

The 61,000 BTC Remain Subject to Unresolved Claims

The High Court has answered an important preliminary question: claims to the seized Bitcoin will be assessed under Chinese law. It has not determined whether the applicants own any of the holdings, how much may be recoverable by the state, or what should eventually happen to the Bitcoin.

Those later findings—not the choice-of-law ruling alone—will determine whether the assets are returned, excluded from recovery or eventually disposed of.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or investment advice. The proceedings remain ongoing, and later rulings may affect the outcome.