Qian Zhimin, the core figure defined in this case as illegal fundraising, is being pushed into the spotlight of China's judicial practice concerning cryptocurrency assets. According to publicly available information, the amount involved in this case exceeds 40 billion yuan, and it has been regarded by multiple media outlets as one of the largest judicial cases involving cryptocurrency assets in recent years. As the investigation and prosecution phases come to a close, the battleground has shifted to the property disposal level: the Second Branch of the Tianjin People’s Procuratorate has formally submitted an application to the Tianjin Second Intermediate People’s Court to confiscate Qian Zhimin’s illegal gains and other related assets. The court officially accepted the case on September 28 and disclosed the acceptance situation through an announcement, triggering a subsequent wave of intense media coverage. The most eye-catching detail appeared in the asset list—approximately 61,896.41552945 bitcoins and about 72,745.79502 Bitcoin Cash (BCH), summarized by the media as “approximately 61,800 bitcoins” and “approximately 72,700 BCH,” becoming numerical symbols for public discussion. It is worth emphasizing that this is currently only the stage of the prosecutor's application for confiscation and the court's acceptance of the case, and no ruling has yet been made on whether to confiscate these cryptocurrency assets; this means that the judicial offense and defense surrounding the over 40 billion yuan of fundraising and its cryptocurrency assets have already shifted from the question of “whether a crime occurred” to “how to dispose of it,” yet it is still far from a conclusion.
40 Billion and 60,000 Coins: The Impact of a Rare Massive Case
If we only look at “over 40 billion yuan of illegal fundraising” itself, the Qian Zhimin case has already reached the upper limit of the scale of illegal fundraising cases in recent years; research briefs categorize it directly as super large-scale. Coupled with the involved assets of approximately 61,800 bitcoins and about 72,700 BCH, it appears particularly striking among judicial cases concerning cryptocurrency assets in recent years—this is a numerical combination that impacts both the crypto community and traditional finance, and it is one of the very few instances in publicly available information that can clearly present a scale coordinate.
In comparison to traditional illegal fundraising cases, changes in the asset landscape are particularly crucial. In the past, people were accustomed to seeing bank account balances, real estate, vehicles, and various equities in judgments; these asset tracking paths are clear, disposal rules are mature, and value fluctuations are limited. However, in this case, the inclusion of bitcoin and bitcoin cash along with other forked currencies in the list of involved assets signifies that judicial authorities must face challenges widely acknowledged in global judicial practice, such as decentralization, cross-border movement, private key control, and price volatility. The recovery pattern is no longer just a simple linear process of “seizure—auction—payment.” For this reason, “approximately 61,800 bitcoins” has been rapidly cited and amplified by crypto and financial media outlets such as Jinse Finance, ShenChao TechFlow, Odaily Planet Daily, BlockBeats, and Foresight News; it symbolizes a rare scale and is a core variable influencing the difficulty and uncertainty of asset disposal in this case.
Prosecutor's Application for Confiscation: Case Enters Asset Disposal Phase
During the previous investigation and prosecution phases, the focus of the Qian Zhimin case was on “people” and “actions”—what kind of illegal fundraising crime constituted, how to determine the scale of involvement, and whether the evidence chain was closed. It was not until the Second Branch of the Tianjin People’s Procuratorate submitted an application for the confiscation of illegal gains and other involved assets to the Tianjin Second Intermediate People’s Court that the case truly shifted from qualitative accountability to the judicial offense and defense surrounding the fate of the assets. According to reports by The Paper, citing an announcement from the Tianjin Second Intermediate Court, on September 28, the court accepted the application and announced it to the public on October 13. This timeline marks the official initiation of the property disposal procedure but is still only the starting point of the disposal chain, not the endpoint.
It must be repeatedly emphasized that “case acceptance” does not legally equate to “already confiscated.” Acceptance means that the court believes the prosecutor's application meets the formal requirements and decides to enter the review process, after which a ruling will be made regarding whether to confiscate, the scope of confiscation, and the specific methods. Current publicly available information only points to the acceptance status, and there has been no expression of any “confiscation ruling,” let alone any authoritative conclusions that the involved cryptocurrency assets have already been disposed of. For the “approximately 61,800 bitcoins” and “approximately 72,700 BCH,” the significance of this stage is: they have entered a specialized property process and will face examination and technical recognition focused on the characteristics of decentralized assets. Ultimately, whether they are entirely confiscated, partially recognized as legally recoverable property, or if new paths for disposal emerge will gradually take shape in the subsequent ruling and execution phases.
Bitcoin and BCH Appear in the List: How Justice Recognizes and Tracks
Looking through the list of involved assets, what catches the eye is not a single asset but a group of interconnected on-chain numbers: about 61,896.41552945 bitcoins and about 72,745.79502 bitcoin cash, summarized by the media as “approximately 61,800 bitcoins” and “approximately 72,700 BCH.” The simultaneous appearance of bitcoin and bitcoin cash, which are forked currencies, signifies that the assets involved in the case are not a single linear asset type but rather multiple value carriers split from the evolved underlying protocol. All of these must be placed into the same judicial disposal framework.
In China's judicial practice, the recognition and tracking of these types of assets are filled with technical and legal tensions. They feature characteristics of decentralization, cross-border movement, dependence on private key control, and drastic price fluctuations. Global judicial practice widely recognizes the high difficulties in the stages of identification, freezing, and confiscation: on one hand, it needs to legally answer “who exactly owns the numbers on this string of addresses, and what nature of property does it belong to”; on the other hand, it must also technically confirm “who holds the private keys, and whether they can truly control and transfer these values.” When forked currencies are included in the same list, these questions further compound—how should the same historical investment be converted into value when it evolves on-chain into multiple assets, how to define the rights boundaries between different chains, and how to avoid double counting or omissions during disposal—all raise higher demands on the judicial authority’s ability to recognize, track, and ultimately dispose of assets. Behind this list, what is truly tested is whether the judicial system can find a disposal path that can withstand the complexity of asset scale and form between technical details and legal logic.
Industry Opinion Field: From News Numbers to Compliance Anxiety
After the announcement was made public on October 13, crypto and financial media almost simultaneously shifted to the same headline template: Jinse Finance, ShenChao TechFlow, Odaily Planet Daily, BlockBeats, Foresight News, and others successively cited The Paper and the Tianjin Second Intermediate Court announcement, presenting “approximately 61,800 bitcoins applied for confiscation” alongside “over 40 billion yuan in illegal fundraising.” The two numbers on the screen quickly became the narrative center: one represents the volume of on-chain assets, and the other marks the severity of traditional financial crime. Discussions in the crypto community naturally revolved around “judicial confiscation of crypto assets” and no longer lingered on the individual details of the case.
Research briefs point out that this ongoing follow-up is not merely a flow instinct but rather an industry’s instinctive alertness to regulatory and judicial signals. In the context of recent years where authorities have repeatedly emphasized the prevention of illegal fundraising and financial risks, imposing strict constraints on crypto-related activities, the prosecutor's direct application to confiscate bitcoins and BCH, and being accepted by the intermediate court, is viewed by many practitioners as a clear message: on-chain assets do not constitute any “safety net beyond regulation”; they can be recognized as illegal gains and can enter strict freezing, identification, and disposal procedures. Thus, the public discourse has shifted from calculating the market value of 60,000 bitcoins to repeatedly questioning the legal boundaries of fundraising structures, investor relationships, and asset sources. Project parties and participants are likely to treat token-based financing arrangements more cautiously in the medium term and be more concerned with whether the fundraising process and compliance framework can withstand the scrutiny of similar cases; ultimately, this case will leave a lasting reminder in the industry memory for participants to re-examine risk awareness and compliance thresholds.
After the Major Case: Unresolved Questions of Judicial Disposal of Cryptocurrency Assets
The progression of the Qian Zhimin case to the asset disposal phase indicates that cryptocurrency assets, represented by bitcoins and their forked assets, are no longer the “marginal items” that can be avoided in judicial practice but must be directly responded to and included in procedures for confiscation and return. However, at this juncture, the absence of key information is equally clear: research briefs bluntly state that the current legal status of the suspect, whether they have been convicted, the specific fundraising methods, the number of victims, and the flow of funds, the current market value, storage form, and freezing status of the involved bitcoins and bitcoin cash, and even whether the asset list includes other types of assets have not been made public; after the court has accepted the prosecutor's confiscation application, when it will hold a hearing and issue a ruling is also in a completely blank timeframe. The application for the confiscation of a massive amount of cryptocurrency assets, yet leaving so many “questions to be answered” in information disclosure, has created a new gaze relationship between participants in the Chinese cryptocurrency market and judicial authorities: practitioners are beginning to realize that once similar cases increase in the future, the transaction records, fundraising logic, and compliance boundaries of on-chain assets will be placed under more detailed judicial scrutiny; while judicial authorities must engage in more frequent interactions with the technical community and market practice in the process of recognizing, tracking, and disposing of decentralized assets, gradually exploring a replicable judicial disposal path through mutual testing and adjustment.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: 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。
