Original authors: Li Qinhua, Fang Siwen
Original source: China News Weekly
The name "Qian Zhimin" has not been seen by Ge Qiu for several years. Discussions surrounding this name and the Blue Sky Ge Rui investment case have gradually quieted down. Until the past two months, the nearly 400-member rights protection group she belongs to became lively again, with members sharing lawyer interpretations and various short videos about the case's progress.
On November 11 local time, Qian Zhimin, the main perpetrator of the Blue Sky Ge Rui illegal fundraising case in Tianjin, China, and the largest Bitcoin money laundering case in British history, was sentenced to 11 years and 8 months in prison in the UK. With the criminal aspect of the case settled, public attention has shifted to cross-border recovery.
In this case, British police have identified 61,000 Bitcoins, which, according to British judicial documents, were primarily purchased with the proceeds from Qian Zhimin's criminal activities in China. The UK Supreme Court was originally scheduled to hold a hearing on November 17 to discuss the disposal resolution of the 61,000 Bitcoins, but it was later announced that it would be postponed until January 2026.
A lawyer who has participated in the Qian Zhimin case trials multiple times told China News Weekly that the UK courts are currently conducting both criminal proceedings and civil recovery procedures simultaneously, with different participants and courts for each. Some evidence from the criminal proceedings may be used in the civil recovery process, and it takes time for the participants and courts in the civil recovery process to become familiar with this evidence, making the postponement of the hearing understandable.
Due to the soaring price of Bitcoin, the market value of the involved Bitcoins once approached 50 billion yuan. Whether victims can expect full compensation, or even "profit" due to the increase in currency value, and who should enjoy the appreciation portion, has become one of the focal points of discussion in this case.
Yan Lixin, a professor at Fudan University's International Finance School and executive director of the Fudan University China Anti-Money Laundering Research Center, told China News Weekly that this Bitcoin money laundering case is not only an "epic" case in the field of anti-money laundering for digital currencies but also a complex legal, diplomatic, and geopolitical game, a battle over "ownership" and "jurisdiction." "Our core demand is very clear—return the property to its rightful owner, that is, to return it to the Chinese victims."
Image/Visual China
More than 61,000 Bitcoins
Recalling the past seven or eight years, Zheng Zhengge describes it as "losing everything, with family separated." In 2016, through a friend's introduction, this not-so-well-off teacher came into contact with an investment project called "Blue Sky Ge Rui."
At that time, Blue Sky Ge Rui claimed to be collaborating with local governments on elderly care projects and portrayed smart elderly care as a future development trend. Zheng Zhengge did not trust private enterprises, but the claim of "government cooperation" made him lower his guard. In order to board this wealth train, he overdrawn his credit card and took out loans from his salary, investing over one million yuan in total.
The myth was shattered unexpectedly. Over the years, he has been struggling in the quagmire of debt repayment, with over 100,000 yuan still owed. At his most desperate moment, due to overdue loans, he was blacklisted in credit reporting, and his salary card was frozen for three to four years. As a teacher, he attended classes on time but could not receive his salary, while his child at home was waiting for money to attend university.
Meanwhile, Qian Zhimin, who harvested the "investors'" money, instructed "front figures" to open accounts on the cryptocurrency exchange Huobi from June 2014, systematically converting investors' funds into crypto assets. The judgment from the UK Supreme Court detailed this process.
The masked individual on the right is Qian Zhimin (file photo).
When he arrived in the UK in September 2017, Qian Zhimin had about 70,000 Bitcoins worth £305 million. In October 2018, London police first searched his residence in Hampstead, discovering an additional £163,000 in cash and evidence of the transfer and conversion of over 18,800 Bitcoins, gradually locking in clues to about 61,000 Bitcoins.
According to previous reports by China News Weekly, a special audit showed that from August 2014 to July 2017, Blue Sky Ge Rui raised over 40.2 billion yuan, all of which was controlled and allocated by Qian Zhimin. From April 2014 to August 2017, Blue Sky Ge Rui refunded over 34.1 billion yuan to 128,409 people, with another 1.14 billion yuan used to purchase Bitcoins.
Documents obtained from the British court also revealed that Qian Zhimin purchased a total of 194,951 Bitcoins, exceeding the 61,000 Bitcoins identified by the police. However, the court did not disclose the status of the remaining 120,000 Bitcoins. This means that it is highly likely that Qian Zhimin's assets still include undiscovered or unconfiscated Bitcoins. In an interview with British media, Detective Joe Ryan from the London Metropolitan Police revealed that Qian Zhimin claimed to have "lost the password" to a wallet containing 20,000 Bitcoins. Based on the latest market price, these "lost" Bitcoins alone are worth about 12.5 billion yuan.
The UK Supreme Court expressed particular sympathy for the plight of these "investors." On November 11, 2025, during the sentencing statement for Qian Zhimin, British Judge Sally-Ann Hales specifically pointed out that although the currently seized funds are sufficient to repay investors, this cannot erase the real harm suffered by victims beyond financial loss: "Some have lost their homes, suffered physical and mental health damage, and experienced broken marriages and family relationships, with 'shame' being a recurring common feeling."
The court ruled that given Qian Zhimin's role in the crime, it was necessary to adjust the sentence upward from the prescribed 10 years, and after comprehensive consideration, his sentence was ultimately set at 11 years and 8 months.
Since his arrest in the UK in April 2024, Qian Zhimin has repeatedly claimed innocence. However, on the first day of this trial, he pleaded guilty, leading to speculation that the UK may have received evidence assistance from Chinese law enforcement agencies.
On October 30, 2025, the Hedong Branch of the Tianjin Public Security Bureau released a situation report stating that Tianjin's public security authorities had conducted in-depth international cooperation with British law enforcement agencies to recover losses for fundraising participants through international law enforcement and judicial cooperation.
Additionally, the "Blue Sky Ge Rui Case Refund Working Group" of the Hedong District Finance Bureau in Tianjin also issued a notice reminding unregistered fundraising participants in the Blue Sky Ge Rui case to verify their information, with a deadline from October 31, 2025, to December 29, 2025. The notice stated: "This verification will serve as the basis for the refund of funds, and relevant fundraising participants should verify their information within the specified period."
"The biggest highlight of this case is the breakthrough in 'intelligence exchange' and 'evidence recognition.' Although there was no extradition, the British police recognized the basic facts provided by the Chinese police regarding upstream fraud, which is very difficult," Yan Lixin pointed out to China News Weekly.
The head of the Economic and Cyber Crime Command of the London Metropolitan Police also stated that Qian Zhimin's conviction marks the result of "years of joint efforts by (British) police and Chinese law enforcement agencies."
The office location of Blue Sky Ge Rui in the Fujian Building in Hedong District, Tianjin, has been sealed off. Photo by our reporter Liu Xiangnan.
Proving it is "dirty money"
Multiple interviewees recalled to China News Weekly that between 2021 and 2022, the Tianjin Public Security Bureau conducted two rounds of compensation for registered victims, with reimbursement rates of 5% and 8%. Zheng Zhengge said, "For those who invested hundreds of millions, this is just a drop in the bucket."
In November 2021, Blue Sky Ge Rui's general manager Wu Xiaolong was tried, with his personal involvement in the case amounting to 8.7 billion yuan, while his available assets for enforcement were only 9.56 million yuan, merely one-thousandth of the amount to be recovered.
Meanwhile, across the ocean, the UK has issued a property freezing order based on the Proceeds of Crime Act, with the frozen 61,000 Bitcoins now worth over £5 billion due to market surges. In September 2024, the UK Crown Prosecution Service formally initiated civil recovery proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) and issued a notice regarding the victims of the Blue Sky Ge Rui fraud case, explaining the recovery matters.
Theoretically, according to Section 281 of POCA, the claims process leaves a narrow door for "investors" attempting to assert their rights—"investors" can file a claim with the UK Supreme Court to assert their legitimate claims to their property.
On October 15, 2025, the UK Crown Prosecution Service also proposed in a temporary hearing that it is considering establishing a "compensation scheme" for Chinese victims who did not participate in the civil case, which is currently pending court review and approval. China News Weekly sent an email to the service inquiring about specific details, but no effective response was received by the time of publication.
According to asset recovery statistics released by the UK government, the Home Office will share confiscated assets with the requesting country, with the usual sharing ratio being 50%. In specific cases involving victims, the UK may negotiate to determine different ratios.
Zhu Jiangnan, a professor in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Hong Kong, pointed out to China News Weekly that according to the China-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, when the assets confiscated by the requested party are public funds, and these assets are derived from corruption or embezzlement by the requesting party, regardless of whether these funds have been laundered, the requested party should return the confiscated assets or the proceeds from the sale of those assets to the requesting party, but reasonable liquidation costs should be deducted. For economic fraud cases like Qian Zhimin's, the applicable situation is specified, and the specific return situation still needs to be determined through judicial procedures, based on the evidence chain, court trials, diplomatic negotiations, and discussions, without a clear unified ratio.
When it is ultimately clarified how much of the funds belong to the UK, the distribution of interests among different departments within the UK will also vary. Zhu Jiangnan stated that the asset recovery incentivization scheme (ARIS) established in the UK clearly stipulates a 50:50 split between the central government and various law enforcement agencies to incentivize law enforcement agencies to further combat crime. "In the Qian Zhimin case, the high level of enthusiasm shown by the police and prosecution, aside from professional spirit and performance considerations, is hard to say is not driven by this interest mechanism," Zhu Jiangnan analyzed.
In response to inquiries from China News Weekly regarding asset disposal, the London Metropolitan Police also clearly stated that they hope to see some of the recovered assets "flow to London and its citizens." For the British police, who have spent seven years investigating this case, it undoubtedly views this as a funding recovery channel to cover the costs of their operations.
"In the face of huge interests, any institution can be a 'rational economic man.' The ARIS mechanism turns law enforcement into a business, and what we need to do is prove that this money is 'dirty money' with blood on it, not 'profit' without an owner," Yan Lixin pointed out to China News Weekly.
The misalignment of "the case is abroad, and the victims are at home" is the biggest difficulty in cross-border asset recovery. Many experts emphasize the need to demonstrate the principle and stance of "victim priority" in case negotiations. Yan Lixin stated that according to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), returning assets to their legitimate owners is the top priority. "Only after compensating all victims should the remaining portion (if any) be discussed between China and the UK."
Zhao Binghao, director of the Financial Technology Law Research Institute at China University of Political Science and Law, told China News Weekly that China can accept the UK deducting "reasonable law enforcement costs," but it is necessary to prevent automatically falling into a default return of 50% or a lower ratio.
Previously, the UK Supreme Court emphasized that unless an individual or entity makes a claim of rights as the proceedings advance to the stage specified in Section 281 of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), there will be no intergovernmental contact. In other words, the UK will first determine the ownership of the assets through its judicial process before considering negotiations with China regarding asset recovery.
This action has sparked controversy. Qian Zhimin's lawyer, Roger Sahota, stated, "The UK court's move means that any surplus from recovered assets may be retained by the state, effectively turning law enforcement into a potential new source of government revenue."
How Much Can Be Recovered?
For the victims of this case, the most anticipated outcome is "full recovery." This model is not without precedent.
Zhu Jiangnan mentioned a milestone case in China's pursuit of fugitives and asset recovery—the case of Li Huabo, former head of the Economic Construction Division of the Finance Bureau of Poyang County, Jiangxi Province. In 2015, although China and Singapore had not established a bilateral judicial assistance treaty, cooperation between the two countries led the Singapore High Court to enforce the confiscation ruling of a Chinese court, returning the total amount of 20.4464 million yuan in illicit funds from the Li Huabo case to China. This was the first case in which Chinese procuratorial authorities used the illegal proceeds confiscation procedure to recover funds involved in corruption cases from fugitives abroad.
Yan Lixin suggested that a more feasible path would be for the Chinese government or a designated asset manager to represent all victims in filing a civil lawsuit in the UK court or as a rights holder in a criminal ancillary civil lawsuit. "This is not only a legal technical issue but also a social governance issue. The government's involvement can maximize the appeasement of domestic victims' emotions while demonstrating national will in international courts."
Shanghai Duan and Duan Law Firm is one of the firms involved in representing investors in the Blue Sky Ge Rui illegal fundraising case for cross-border recovery of losses. Gu Zhaoqin, a lawyer at the firm's Hongqiao branch, told China News Weekly that the civil recovery process initiated by the UK prosecution is still in its early stages, and substantive evidence exchange has not yet begun, indicating that the entire process will be lengthy.
Previously, Yang Yuhua, a partner at the UK law firm JunZeJun, pointed out that over a thousand Chinese investors have attempted to assert their rights through this process, with some making "radical" claims: not only seeking compensation for the principal but also demanding the appreciation gains from Bitcoin over the past seven years.
Yan Lixin believes that if Chinese victims claim compensation based on the appreciated value, they may face questions of "unjust enrichment" in the eyes of UK judges. "However, the 'tracing principle' in the anti-money laundering field tells us: if the victim's money was used to buy a lottery ticket that won a prize, the victim has the right to claim the prize, not just the principal of the ticket."
Zhao Binghao also agrees with this logic. He stated that civil recovery focuses on whether the property itself is a representation of illegal gains. In principle, as long as the victim can prove that the money they were defrauded of eventually grew into virtual currency along the chain, they have the right to claim compensation at its current value. However, whether the amount can be fully realized depends on whether the funds on the blockchain can be completely traced, how to distribute among different victims, and the court's acceptance of the evidence chain.
However, Yu Jianing, co-chair of the Blockchain Committee of the China Communications Industry Association, expressed a contrary view to China News Weekly. He believes that the massive appreciation of the 61,000 Bitcoins over seven years constitutes typical capital gains, arising from the market increase of Bitcoin. If victims are allowed to assert rights based on the current market value of Bitcoin, it would mean acknowledging their enjoyment of investment gains from the appreciation of virtual currency within an inherently illegal funding structure. "This conflicts with the negative evaluation of illegal fundraising behavior in criminal law and would create a reverse incentive where 'success equals high returns, and failure equals victimhood.'"
He pointed out that, referencing domestic precedents such as the PlusToken case, Chinese courts have uniformly recognized the entire value of virtual currency, including the appreciation portion, as illegal gains, not based on cost or purchase price. For this portion, which far exceeds the total principal, "it is more appropriate to understand it as a public residual value." China should advocate for the indivisibility of this substantial premium as part of the criminal asset package through diplomatic and judicial channels, recovering it and incorporating it into the Chinese treasury. After completing the refund of the principal to the victims, the remaining substantial funds should be converted into public financial resources.
Technical Identification Challenges
In addition, the technical identification of evidence poses a more challenging problem.
Yu Jianing stated that for an ordinary investor, trying to trace their "investment" in RMB all the way to the 61,000 Bitcoins currently seized by the UK police is almost an impossible task. The reason is that this path crosses three fundamentally disconnected systems: first, the bank account and cash seizure system primarily based on RMB; second, the over-the-counter (OTC) currency exchange market that heavily relies on personal networks and WeChat groups; and third, the on-chain flow of funds that has been deliberately obscured by cold wallets, multi-layered transfers, and mixers.
From 2014 to 2017, when Qian Zhimin systematically converted investors' funds into crypto assets, Yu Jianing views this period as a typical era of OTC currency exchange, concentrated buying, and highly mixed funds, supplemented by mixers. The source of funds lost its individual recognizability the moment it entered the large pool; on-chain analysis can only reconstruct that "this pool is dirty," not "whose drop of water this is." "Once the funds reach the promoters or the funding pool, they are merged into a huge black box, and the individual perspective can no longer see which amount of money was exchanged for which coin."
Complicating matters further, many investors in the Blue Sky Ge Rui case were involved in multiple projects with rolling investments. A lawyer who has deeply studied this case told China News Weekly that in this case, the principal, profits, and reinvestments are intermingled, with some products having different cashback methods—some rolling in cash, while others reinvested in physical assets like "multiple coins," making the reported amounts inconsistent with actual losses. "At this stage, both in China and the UK, there is a lack of professional capacity to provide a complete and credible reconstruction of the entire flow of funds, the Bitcoin conversion process, and the corresponding ownership relationships."
Faced with extremely high legal thresholds and recovery costs, Zheng Zhengge ultimately chose to work with a third-party organization facilitated by a multinational company to assist in his rights protection, even though the promised compensation cut could be as high as 20%. He just hopes to quickly recover his principal, "as for the appreciation portion, I dare not hope for it."
Additionally, Zhao Binghao pointed out that some international judicial institutions may use the current contradictions in China's regulatory and judicial practices to question the Chinese side. "In terms of regulation, the issuance and financing of Bitcoin is illegal. But in handling cases, we treat virtual currency as property, which puts us in a rather awkward position."
In response, Yu Jianing believes that while China denies the monetary attributes of Bitcoin, the Civil Code clearly protects its rights as "network virtual property." This precisely provides a solid property rights basis for cross-border asset recovery.
Yan Lixin offered a sharper "pragmatic penetrating" metaphor, stating, "Our 'internal prohibition' is to prevent financial risks, while 'external recovery' is to uphold judicial justice. These two are not contradictory, just like cleaning up while keeping the door closed does not mean that what is thrown outside can be picked up by anyone."
"This case is not only about asset recovery but also an opportunity. It forces China to shift its virtual currency regulation from 'only emphasizing risks and prohibitions' to 'risk prevention, having rules, and aligning with international standards' for refined governance. Only in this way can China have sufficient discourse power and institutional confidence in future cross-border asset recovery and asset sharing negotiations," Zhao Binghao said.
(The names Zheng Zhengge and Ge Qiu are pseudonyms.)
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。
