On January 25, 2026, the High Court in London held a procedural hearing regarding the Qian Zhimin case, where Judge Turner clashed with the UK prosecution (DPP) over how to represent victims within China and how to recover and distribute the assets involved. The core of the case revolves around a suspicious fund disclosed from a single source amounting to 60,000 BTC, while the internal daily flow of BTC in major global exchanges is only about 14,000 BTC, at a low point since 2022, creating a stark contrast inside and outside the court. The key question raised in this hearing is not "how much money can be recovered," but rather: under the premise of highly dispersed victims, complex nationalities, and limited assets, how to protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese victims while avoiding "agent proliferation" that could consume recoverable assets, thus finding a balance between judicial justice and procedural costs.
Clash in London Court: Focus on Victim Representation
● Scene of contention: During the hearing on January 25, 2026, Judge Turner repeatedly questioned the UK prosecution about how to design the identity confirmation and representation mechanism for Chinese victims to ensure compliance without losing control of the process. The prosecution emphasized the need to open participation channels for overseas victims while also admitting that they currently lack complete data on the number, distribution, and specific losses of Chinese victims, and can only establish a "accessible but controllable" representation framework, which raised concerns from the judge about future costs and order.
● Concerns about "agent proliferation": Judge Turner pointed out the potential systemic risks of the case—if various lawyers, third-party funders, and even "collective representation platforms" are allowed to swarm in without restrictions, the so-called "agent proliferation will erode recoverable assets." In other words, with each additional layer of representation, there are more fees and incentive distortions, and the actual BTC that reaches the victims may be significantly diluted. For a case with only a limited pool of 60,000 BTC for recovery, this dilution effect could be more destructive than price fluctuations.
● Qualification before compensation: The reason the procedural hearing did not directly discuss "how much each victim can recover" but instead repeatedly tugged over representation qualifications and claims ordering is that these preliminary issues determine the efficiency and fairness of the entire recovery mechanism. Who has the right to represent overseas victims, how to prioritize different batches of claims, and how the claims recognized in the bankruptcy proceedings of Blue Sky Grey connect with the results of criminal recovery are all key premises affecting subsequent substantive rulings, thus placed at the forefront for repeated scrutiny.
● Weighing between "locking assets" and "clarifying queues": The UK judiciary now needs to make a difficult choice between "quickly locking and disposing of the involved assets" and "carefully clarifying the queue of victims and representation rights." If locking is too slow, the value fluctuations of the 60,000 BTC and the risks of on-chain transfers will be amplified; if the queue is too roughly clarified, it may trigger subsequent large-scale judicial reviews and cross-border doubts. Judge Turner's cautious attitude indicates that the English court prefers to invest time and energy in queue design and representation constraints under the premise that assets have been controlled, to reduce the probability of future procedural challenges.
The Dilemma of Cross-Border Recovery: From London to China…
● The necessity and unknown boundaries of Sino-British cooperation: Based on publicly available information, accurately identifying victims within China and clarifying the complete path of funds flowing out to the accumulation of 60,000 BTC clearly requires cooperation between the judicial and law enforcement sectors of China and the UK. However, currently available information does not disclose any specific cooperation terms or agreements, only confirming that the London side has regarded "how to connect with real victims within China" as a difficulty in designing the representation mechanism. The content of the terms and execution methods remain opaque, and the outside world cannot infer any party's formal position from this.
● Procedural friction between traditional and crypto recovery: In traditional cross-border asset recovery, there is a heavy reliance on bank statements, written contracts, and existing mutual assistance treaties, with evidence carriers and judicial assistance paths relatively mature; whereas cross-border recovery of crypto assets heavily depends on on-chain tracking, exchange cooperation, and multi-regulatory permissions, resembling a combination of technical evidence collection and regulatory coordination. This means that even if the on-chain path is clear, how to convert it into evidence universally accepted across jurisdictions, and how to synchronize freezing and disposal between different countries, will become new friction points.
● The constraint effect of multi-jurisdictional procedures: Alongside the Qian Zhimin case, the bankruptcy proceedings of Blue Sky Grey are also progressing, with its asset disposal and debt confirmation potentially intersecting with this batch of BTC. The "unified liquidation" logic of the bankruptcy court and the "recovery and return" logic of criminal justice do not completely align in terms of timing, priority arrangements, and asset ownership recognition, leading to multiple jurisdictions and cross-constraints over the same pool of funds. The High Court in London must constantly consider the existing arrangements of the bankruptcy proceedings when designing the recovery path to avoid conflicting rulings.
● Difficulties can only be inferred from limited facts: Since the detailed terms of Sino-British law enforcement cooperation have not been made public, and the technical terms of the Blue Sky Grey bankruptcy case are highly specialized and not fully disclosed, the outside world can only grasp the public statements from the UK High Court, known procedural nodes, and a small amount of disclosed data. Regarding how cross-border cooperation can be concretely implemented and how parties can allocate discourse power, we can only analyze at the level of "cooperation is needed and there are procedural frictions," without making any detailed speculations about undisclosed agreements and negotiation contents.
Under the Shadow of 60,000 BTC: Trading…
● Contrast of scale and quietness: According to a single source, the scale involved in this case reaches 60,000 BTC, which is enough to exert pressure on market sentiment in any cycle. In stark contrast, the current internal BTC flow in major exchanges is only about 14,000 BTC, at a low point since 2022. This means that the potential chips awaiting disposal in the case far exceed the amount that can naturally circulate within mainstream platforms in a single day, casting a shadow of "undecided supply" over the market both psychologically and in terms of liquidity.
● Implicit effects of low Binance flow: Among this overall internal flow of 14,000 BTC, about 2,700 BTC of internal flow on Binance is reported to be at a historical low, indicating that the natural turnover of the order book on one of the most representative global platforms is significantly cooling. In the short term, this decline in trading activity will weaken the depth of the order book, making larger orders more likely to break through the spread, triggering amplified price fluctuations; at the same time, it also reduces the convenience for institutions to adjust positions, making the situation of "hard to exit and hard to enter" increasingly common.
● On-chain massive chips and market desolation: When there are massive chips amounting to 60,000 BTC on-chain awaiting judicial disposal, while the daily turnover in the market appears particularly weak, the entire market presents a typical state of "a heavy stone on top, but fine sand beneath." Participants are worried that at some future point, these chips may be sold off or transferred en masse, while also finding that the current market's capacity to absorb is limited, making it difficult to buffer against potential shocks. This contrast exacerbates the general conservatism from market making to active trading.
● The cumulative effect of judicial and compliance pressures: Against the backdrop of multiple jurisdictions continuously strengthening asset freezing, KYC, and anti-money laundering requirements, the compliance costs faced by market makers and large trading institutions are rising sharply. Recovery procedures like this case lead the market to expect that "once large on-chain funds are targeted, the pace and path of disposal will be deeply influenced by regulation," further compressing the space for profit that previously relied on high leverage and high turnover. The result is a decline in market-making willingness, a shrinkage in depth, and a weakening of trading activity, collectively pushing BTC internal flow to its lowest point since 2022.
Global Discourse Power Struggle: The US Claims…
● Regulators' pricing ambitions: In this round of global regulatory discourse restructuring, US regulators do not hide their ambitions for crypto pricing power. CFTC Chairman Mike Selig openly declared that "the US is the world capital of cryptocurrency," sending a strong signal: whether it is derivatives regulation, spot ETFs, or platform compliance, Washington hopes to shape a global price discovery center through a complete set of institutional designs. This stance means that every major multinational case's judicial direction is evaluated through the lens of "who leads the rules."
● Davos and the imagination of global rules: At the Davos Forum, European and American regulators discussed the regulatory framework for tools represented by USDC, focusing on core issues such as capital adequacy, reserve transparency, and systemic risk prevention. They attempt to incorporate this new type of asset into a "global standard" dominated by developed economies through stricter disclosure and licensing systems. This is both a continuation of regulatory reflections following the 2008 financial crisis and a preemptive defense against spillover risks in the crypto field.
● The London case as a judicial chip: In the face of the US's confidence in regulatory narratives, every move made by London in handling this 60,000 BTC major case is seen as a chip in its bid for the status of "global crypto judicial center." By emphasizing multi-party participation, cross-border cooperation, and procedural fairness in its design, the UK aims to showcase its professionalism and neutrality in complex digital asset cases, accumulating reputation and precedents for future multinational disputes to "choose to litigate or enforce in London."
● The game behind confidence and caution: The US regulatory tone emphasizes market innovation and leadership, thus daring to boldly declare itself "the capital of the world"; the UK, on the other hand, demonstrates an extremely cautious stance procedurally through Judge Turner's repeated questioning of the costs of "agent proliferation" during the hearing. The former seems to be shaping a clear and predictable regulatory brand for capital markets, while the latter aims to reduce the space for future challenges at the judicial level. Behind both paths lies a hidden competition over capital flows, the location of case resolutions, and long-term pricing power.
From Stablecoins to Gold Reserves: Trust…
● Regulatory boundaries of cash instruments: In the discussions related to Davos, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire stated that tools represented by USDC are essentially "cash instruments" and should not pay interest to holders. This statement reflects regulators' heightened vigilance against risk spillover—once cash-like instruments begin to attract funds with interest, they will directly compete with bank deposits and money market funds, thereby amplifying traditional financial risks and crypto risks, triggering more complex regulatory chain reactions.
● The cross-asset problem of custodial trust: Whether it is fiat currency, gold, or crypto assets, they all face a common problem globally: how reliable are custodial institutions? The regulatory discussions at Davos and the controversies over Germany's gold reserves expose trust gaps from two dimensions: "rule design" and "actual storage locations of assets"; one side worries that overly loose rules will lead to risk expansion, while the other doubts whether assets are indeed stored safely and transparently at the expected locations as per the books.
● Contrast between traditional systems and crypto recovery: In the Qian Zhimin case, the recovery of 60,000 BTC faces procedural uncertainties, and how much and when victims will recover depends on the comprehensive results of multiple national courts, bankruptcy proceedings, and regulatory cooperation. This uncertainty mirrors the doubts about the safety of custodial banks, sovereign credit, and gold reserves in the traditional financial system: one is "rules are changing and hard to see clearly," while the other is "do the numbers match the physical assets?" Both point to the same issue—under the environment of cross-border asset flows and overlapping regulations, trust is becoming scarce and expensive.
● Who should be entrusted with assets: As the trust foundation of the fiat currency system is frequently questioned due to inflation and fiscal deficits, the true state of gold reserves is repeatedly tracked due to disputes among multiple countries, and crypto assets expose procedural opacity and time costs in judicial freezes and cross-border recoveries, the open question faced by individual users becomes increasingly sharp: in a world with multiple trust gaps, who should assets be entrusted to? Choosing between large exchanges, regulated banks, on-chain self-custody wallets, or a decentralized combination of various models is no longer a simple product comparison, but a dynamic weighing of different sources of trust.
Judicial Slow Walk and Market Calm: Recovery…
The essence of judicial procedures is to slowly and meticulously seek balance in a complex, multi-party game environment; however, for victims, each day of delay means a continuation of loss and anxiety. The core contradiction reflected in the London hearing lies here: the judge must first refine mechanisms regarding representation qualifications, claims ordering, and details of cross-border cooperation to reduce future disputes, while victims both domestically and abroad are more concerned about whether they can recover the washed-away BTC in a reasonable time and to the fullest extent possible. This misalignment of pace is destined to be difficult to reconcile.
When large on-chain chips are frozen by the judiciary, and the internal BTC flow in exchanges drops to about 14,000 BTC, with Binance's internal flow at a historical low of only about 2,700 BTC, the main narrative of the market is also shifting: from the early speculative frenzy dominated by "get-rich-quick stories" to a calmer phase of "compliance first, safety first." The intertwining of liquidity tightening, increased regulation, and a crisis of custodial trust forces participants to reassess the risk-reward ratio of platforms, judicial jurisdictions, and custodial models, rather than merely focusing on the steepness of price curves.
Looking ahead, the progress of the Qian Zhimin case and similar multinational major cases will not only affect how this 60,000 BTC ultimately enters the market but may also reshape the flow of funds and asset pricing power in exchanges over a longer period. The judicial jurisdiction that demonstrates higher predictability and execution efficiency in complex cases, and the type of platform that performs more transparently and better protects user rights during freezing, bankruptcy, and recovery, will all subtly guide the direction of capital migration.
In today's highly fragmented information landscape, it is essential to be wary of two types of over-interpretation: one is the various "inevitable scripts" woven around price paths, and the other is the imaginative extension of undisclosed government positions and secret terms. In the face of cross-border recovery and regulatory reshaping, the most reliable anchors remain the publicly available judicial documents, regulatory statements, and verifiable data. The rest will be revealed slowly by time and subsequent procedures.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
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。
