If I discover that my neighbor has stolen my virtual property in an online game, can I call the police? Will the police file a case?
When seasoned investors think about their hard-earned virtual currency being stolen, they become restless and immediately consider seeking mysterious powers. The truth is, this society does have mysterious powers, but your ability to access them is limited.
In cases where I assist with appeals for frozen bank cards, I often find that those who claim to have sought mysterious powers invariably complicate their situations or mess things up. What should be a simple matter ultimately becomes extremely difficult.
What is the logic behind this?
The mysterious powers you seek are mostly intermediaries. For instance, in cases of appealing for the unfreezing of a bank card due to mistaken identity, as long as you eliminate any suspicion of fraud, provide proof of legitimate sources of funds, and prepare the necessary written materials, you can apply for unfreezing. This is inherently a very simple process. If you go through an intermediary, to put it bluntly, they just pass your case to someone else and that’s it.
However, if the intermediary can resolve your issue in a minute, would you still be willing to pay a high fee? You would definitely feel it’s not worth it, so the intermediary will create problems for you, saying this won’t work and that won’t be approved, so you will be more willing to part with your money.
Remember this about your small matters: if your issue cannot be resolved through normal procedures, then seeking connections won’t help either!
Of course, there are exceptions at higher levels, which we mere mortals cannot aspire to. For your trivial matters, paying a few thousand yuan while hoping to change how the public security and judicial system handles cases—what are you thinking? Do you think others are swayed by a few thousand yuan?
Three departments split the fees, each person gets 200? Alright, enough said. What I mentioned above is that you should follow the normal procedures for all matters; the key is to find the normal process. For example: how to determine the value of stolen virtual currency?
Everyone knows that after the 924 announcement, we no longer have legal channels or institutions to determine the price of virtual currencies, meaning no one dares to set a price for virtual currencies.
However, in practice, a price must be anchored because the price is the case value, which is essential for convicting and sentencing the suspect. For instance, yesterday, the Shanghai High Court, the Ministry of Public Security, the Beijing Property Exchange Center, the Hong Kong OSL Digital Asset Exchange, Hashkey Exchange, and the Beijing Technical Appraisal Institute, along with law professors from Renmin University of China, held the first practical seminar on digital assets (virtual currencies, stablecoins, RWA, etc.). I did not attend and do not know any of the aforementioned institutions.
Although I did not attend, one of the guests asked me a question: how to determine the value of stolen virtual currency when reporting a case? If theft is established, there are three ways to determine value:
- Purchase price determination,
- Market value determination,
- Resale value determination.
This is a value determination system that the authorities in Tianjin handle very adeptly, avoiding all bugs. Since the case processing cycle is measured in years, the price of the currency may fluctuate during the seizure. Therefore, at the moment of arrest, the purchase price paid by the victim can be recognized as the amount involved in the case.
If the victim bought early and the market has significantly risen, then the market value can be used for determination. If there is no increase or decrease, the resale amount when the suspect sold it can be used for determination.
Overall, there are basically no bugs. One exception is when the purchase price is extremely low and the current price is also very low, and the suspect has not sold it. In this case, the currency itself has no value, but future increases cannot be ruled out.
Everyone knows that when a report is made about virtual currency theft, the first contact is usually with the grassroots police at the local police station. The most troublesome aspect of this type of case is that our institutions currently do not have clear legal provisions specifically addressing virtual currency theft, which brings considerable confusion to the frontline officers—what nature should the case be classified under, and which department should handle it? They often need to clarify the key legal points first.
To handle such police reports, it is essential to understand the legal attributes of virtual currency. Our country has never recognized the monetary function of virtual currency; it cannot be used as legal tender. However, this does not mean it is completely "nameless." From a technical perspective, virtual currency is essentially computer data with tangible physical properties, which provides the first breakthrough for subsequent classification.
In many places, due to this "computer data attribute," virtual currency theft cases are classified as crimes related to computer information systems. For example, they may be filed under "illegal acquisition of computer information system data." In such cases, the cybersecurity department is usually responsible for investigation, as they have more advantages in technical investigations. However, there is also another voice in practice: should virtual currency be considered "property"?
From a practical standpoint, many people hold virtual currency to convert it into legal tender through compliant channels. This "convertibility" demand actually reflects its property attributes.
If this attribute is recognized, then the classification of virtual currency theft cases changes, potentially involving "theft" or "fraud"—these two charges differ significantly from computer-related crimes, not only in sentencing standards but also in the investigating departments. Theft and fraud are usually led by criminal investigation departments, which have different processes and technical means compared to cybersecurity departments. So, which charge should be filed? In practice, the core consideration is the "method of theft."
For example, if a familiar person commits the crime, such as under the pretext of helping to register a virtual currency account or buying virtual currency, secretly signing an additional wallet address during registration, or quietly backing up the mnemonic phrase, and then transferring the currency from the wallet, this situation does not involve much computer technology and aligns more with the characteristics of "secret theft." Filing under "theft" for investigation would be more appropriate.
However, it must be noted that it is essential to distinguish between criminal and civil matters—sometimes, the parties may have had economic dealings, such as entrusted financial management or debt disputes, and ultimately end up in a "currency theft" situation. This may simply be a civil dispute and cannot be treated as a criminal case from the outset; the foundational relationship between the parties must be clarified first.
If the method of the crime involves computer technology, such as setting up a smart contract trap, sending phishing links, or hacking into the other party's computer or phone to obtain private keys and then transferring virtual currency, the nature of the case changes. This clearly involves using technical means to damage computer information systems and illegally acquire data, which should be filed under "illegal acquisition of computer information system data" or other computer-related crimes, and should be investigated by the cybersecurity department.
According to other court cases, the outcomes of virtual currency theft cases over the years have varied: some have been judged as computer-related crimes, some as theft or fraud, and others ultimately recognized as civil disputes. What does this indicate?
It indicates that there is no "one-size-fits-all" classification standard for such cases; a comprehensive judgment must be made based on the specific circumstances—such as the type of stolen virtual currency (whether there are compliant conversion channels), the specific methods used by the perpetrator (technical or non-technical), and whether there has been actual property loss, all of which must be considered.
In summary, the informed perspective is: when handling reports of virtual currency theft, one must first consider three aspects:
- The actual attributes of the stolen currency (whether it has property value and can be converted legally);
- The method of theft (technical means or traditional theft);
- The local investigation conditions (which department has the capability to handle it).
First, determine whether it constitutes a criminal offense. If it meets the criminal standard, then based on the specific situation, assign it to the most suitable department—for example, technical cases to cybersecurity, traditional theft to criminal investigation. This way, the efficiency of recovering losses can be improved, and accurate classification can be ensured, preventing unnecessary detours.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
