On June 5, 2026, in the British High Court in London, a seemingly "procedural" hearing quietly unfolded regarding how to handle approximately 60,000 bitcoins related to the case of Qian Zhimin, directly reshaping the contest structure of this cross-border recovery case. About 16,000 Chinese victims, already registered in the UK, are attempting to lock down a place for themselves in one of the largest ongoing battles for crypto assets overseas, relying on the civil recovery procedures under the UK Proceeds of Crime Act. The court did not discuss specific distribution ratios during the hearing but first calculated an "entry fee": a total of £190,000 in joint litigation costs will be distributed among the law firms representing the victims based on the number of clients they represent, and must be deposited into the court account by 4 p.m. on June 26, 2026. This means that each law firm and each registered victim must reassess the cost-effectiveness of this pursuit within a short time. A more critical timeframe is pressed one month later—expected in July 2026, the High Court will hold a special hearing to determine which laws apply and whether these Chinese victims are eligible to claim ownership of these 60,000 bitcoins in the UK. The conclusion of this hearing will truly decide whether this cross-border recovery can move from "procedure" to substantive odds under the premise that costs have already been locked in.
The 60,000 Bitcoin Case: From Chinese Victims to the UK High Court
Following the Blue Sky Group incident, among the approximately 128,000 victims in China, a more segmented group quickly emerged: they claimed their losses directly pointed to the flow of about 60,000 bitcoins and shifted their focus from domestic investigation and execution to London. Rather than saying it was "spontaneous overseas," it was more accurate to say they were pushed to the UK by the asset pathways—given that there were already clues indicating a connection between the related assets and UK jurisdiction, about 16,000 Chinese victims ultimately collectively chose to initiate civil recovery procedures in the High Court under the framework of the UK Proceeds of Crime Act. This choice itself was imbued with strong strategic significance: in the UK, civil recovery under the Proceeds of Crime Act allows discussions around the concept of "criminal proceeds," enabling victims to attempt to directly claim the assets involved in the case without having to passively wait for the outcomes of cross-border criminal cooperation and domestic distribution.
The procedural path was thus locked in: the UK opened registration windows for victims to count those willing to "stand before the UK courts" under this framework and their representing law firms; as of the registration deadline of May 22, 2026, only about 16,000 people entered the procedure, accounting for less than 13% of the total victims in the Blue Sky Group case of 128,000. This disparity in numbers effectively carved out two completely different groups within the records of the UK High Court—one group has the qualifications to compete for the 60,000 bitcoins in London, while the other remains within the existing domestic procedures. Subsequently, the High Court managed the case in phases: first holding a procedural hearing on June 5, 2026, to discuss the sharing of the total £190,000 joint litigation costs by the law firms representing victims according to the number of clients they represent; then, in the expected July hearing, addressing the applicable laws and asset ownership. For the approximately 16,000 Chinese victims who have already "crossed the border," this means they have not only placed their rights under the scrutiny of the UK High Court but also accepted an entirely new set of game rules: who the 60,000 bitcoins are ultimately deemed to belong to will first be defined in the judgments of UK judges.
£190,000 Ticket: How the UK Courts Reshape Litigation Barriers
At the procedural hearing on June 5, the UK High Court placed a clear price tag on this cross-border recovery: £190,000. The judge ruled that this joint litigation cost would be shared among the law firms representing victims according to the number of victims they represent, and it must be deposited into the court account by 4 p.m. on June 26, 2026, in advance. This means that it is neither a loss compensation that can be "reclaimed" in future payouts nor merely a "ticket" to enter the UK civil recovery process itself—it's an upfront cost that needs to be paid before any asset distribution judgment is made.
The design of the cost structure turned the abstract notion of collective rights protection into a precise calculus game. For law firms, the more victims they represented and the greater the share allocated to them, the more crucial it became to decide whether to advance costs for clients under uncertain revenue expectations, directly influencing whether they would continue to accept cases and compress their representation scale. For the approximately 16,000 registered Chinese victims, even though the specific amount of personal burden was not disclosed, the question of "whether to pay cash for rights not yet received" became a new dividing line. The registration window closed on May 22, excluding the majority of the approximately 128,000 victims from the UK process, while the advance payment of £190,000 re-filtered for the small portion willing and able to bear the costs of cross-border litigation, creating a threshold design that realistically shrank the feasible group and scale for collective rights protection across borders.
128,000 vs. 16,000: The Vast Majority of Victims Absent from the UK Battleground
On one side is Blue Sky Group, claiming approximately 128,000 victims; on the other, when the UK High Court's registration window closed on May 22, 2026, only about 16,000 were listed, with a participation rate of less than 13%. The numerical gap exposed a harsh reality: in the civil recovery battle launched under the framework of the UK Proceeds of Crime Act, those who could truly stand before the London court are merely a small subset of the Chinese victims. Breakdowns in the information transmission chain, understanding barriers caused by English procedural documents and overseas law firm systems, alongside the aforementioned advance payment pressures, collectively reduced cross-border rights protection from a "theoretical rights option" to a high-threshold path accessible only to a few.
From the court's perspective, this low participation rate will directly alter the foundational understandings of "who is present" and "who speaks for whom." The UK procedure distributes £190,000 in joint litigation costs on the basis of "registered and law-firm-represented victims," also using this same group to define subsequent rights enjoyment and compensation scope, excluding the more than 100,000 unregistered victims from current UK civil recovery procedures. The consequence of this is that when the judges hold specialized hearings in July on asset ownership and design distribution logic, they will be faced with a "procedural collective" significantly smaller than the actual victim group. The tension between the formal procedural fairness—providing windows, clarifying costs, sharing according to headcount—and the substantive result fairness—whether the vast majority of victims have a tangible path to share in the ruling outcome—will be further magnified.
July Legal Applicability Hearing: The Key Leap in Asset Ownership
The "procedural collective" of over 10,000 people currently will talk about their identity in the context of UK discourse at the specialized hearing expected to take place in July 2026. What has been confirmed is that this is not a purely procedural matter regarding criminal confiscation, but a civil recovery under the UK Proceeds of Crime Act: judges will first need to address a preliminary question—should the approximately 60,000 bitcoins involved in the case be viewed under UK law as simply "criminal proceeds," or can they be claimed by a certain category of specific Chinese victims as "belonging to themselves" property? Following that will be the question of what rights basis allows the approximately 16,000 registered individuals to make priority requests and under what conditions to exclude other victims not in the UK process.
The challenge lies in the fact that while the Proceeds of Crime Act provides a clear path for the state to recover "criminal proceeds," it does not inherently offer a special channel for cross-border individuals to claim "return of the original property." How to embed the narrative that "these coins belonged to the victims from the start" within a system centered on "recovering illicit gains" is a hurdle all Chinese victims attempting to assert ownership in the UK must cross: on one hand, they need to persuade the court to recognize and accommodate such ownership claims within the existing civil recovery framework; on the other hand, even if the court acknowledges the principle, it must delineate an operational asset transfer path amidst state recovery, personal distribution, and platform cooperation. Public information has yet to reveal the specific date for the July hearing, nor is there any indication that the court has a preset position on asset ownership; before then, any judgment about the outcome or ruling thought processes can only be speculative. What is truly worth observing is to what extent this hearing will redraw the rights boundaries in cross-border recovery between "state vs. individual" and how that will be referenced in subsequent similar cases.
A New Sample for Cross-Border Recovery: The Boundaries Platforms and Users Must Face
For Chinese investors, this case involving approximately 60,000 bitcoins first reveals a harsh reality: cross-border recovery does not mean "being a victim equals having a share," but rather, "whoever chooses the right judicial venue, can bear the costs, and holds the information qualifies for a place at the table." Of the approximately 128,000 victims from Blue Sky Group, only about 16,000 completed the registration for the High Court procedures under the UK Proceeds of Crime Act before the deadline of May 22, 2026, with the remaining individuals effectively excluded from this asset distribution path; subsequently, the joint fee of £190,000 finalized during the June 5 hearing made "the ability to pay costs shared by number" a second threshold. The lag in information and financial pressure collectively determined who could continue to engage through to the July hearing. For global trading platforms and custodial institutions, this case acts as a premonition mirror: once the UK High Court clarifies in later rulings whether these assets belong primarily to specific victims or should be disposed of by the state according to "criminal proceeds" logic, the boundaries of obligations regarding freezing, marking, or cooperating in disposal upon receiving court orders from the UK or other jurisdictions will be rewritten, while their respective compliance policies and local laws will determine whether they lean towards "user ownership" or "state recovery rights." Before the hearings expected in July 2026 and subsequent judgments, the actual proportion of recoverable assets for these 16,000 victims, whether unregistered victims can be recognized through other channels, and the extent of platform cooperation with relevant assets remain under the same question mark. This question mark will also become a key uncertain variable in how far future cross-border recovery and platform compliance practices can progress and where they may lead.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
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。
