Tianjin court accepts the case, will the British currency come back automatically?

Written by: Liu Honglin

The money was taken by a scammer and exchanged for Bitcoin. More than a decade has passed, Bitcoin has increased by 200 times, and the scammer has been arrested.

Anyone would be unable to resist asking: this time I should be able to get my money back, right? Moreover, it's worth much more than back then; can the extra part also be counted as mine?

The issue that gets the most attention in the Qian Zhimin case this time is this question.

On October 12, 2026, the High Court of the United Kingdom ruled that Chinese investors’ claims to the rights to the Bitcoin involved in the case should be determined according to Chinese law. According to Caixin, victims may miss out on significant appreciation, as Qian Zhimin's average purchase price for Bitcoin on the Huobi exchange in 2014 was around 2815 yuan per coin, which is now about 540,000 yuan, approximately 200 times the average purchase price.

This number can easily make people excited, but unfortunately, it is still not the multiplier for victims' compensation.

The applicant originally hoped to leverage British law to claim rights to the assets involved in the case, standing from the victims' perspective; the money paid out back then was real money, and it indeed was exchanged for currency later. Now that the currency has been found and has appreciated, in terms of distribution, the value that has increased may have nothing to do with them.

Following the UK ruling, there were new updates in China.

The Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate Court announced on October 13 that it has accepted the prosecution's application to confiscate Qian Zhimin's illegal earnings, which involves approximately 61.8 million Bitcoin and other assets.

Why use Chinese law in a case in the UK?

From 2014 to 2017, Qian Zhimin organized and executed an investment scam in China, with some funds converted into Bitcoin. Later, she fled to the UK, where British police seized related assets during their investigation. In November 2025, she was sentenced to 11 years and 8 months in prison for related money laundering crimes.

However, for the victims, they may not be concerned about her criminal punishment, but rather how to handle the assets of over 61,000 Bitcoin and others. For the victims, the hope brought by the rising currency price is very real: they were initially worried that the scammer would have no money to compensate, and now the assets recovered may at least be valuable enough.

But having money to share is one thing, and how much can be legally claimed is another.

Key timeline of the Qian Zhimin case

There was a previous case in the UK called the Foskett case. A buyer paid money to purchase a plot in Portugal, and the payment was supposed to be held by the receiving party in trust, which means holding it for the buyer and using it according to the agreed purposes. However, £20,440 was misappropriated to pay for two premiums on a life insurance policy. After the insured died, the insurance company paid out about £1 million. The buyer requested to share the insurance money proportionate to the contribution to the premiums, but the insurance beneficiary opposed this.

In 2000, the House of Lords in the UK supported the buyer's claim to share the insurance money proportionately. They were able to claim the insurance money because they had ownership rights over the original trust funds, and this right could be traced to the insurance money. This also explains why the applicants in the Qian Zhimin case hope to claim a share of the assets. However, whether they can achieve a similar outcome depends on clarifying what rights they obtained when paying the money and whether those rights can extend to Bitcoin.

Victims certainly hope to get back the share of the asset that belongs to them and not just to recover the 100,000 yuan from years ago. This idea is easily understandable. The legal difficulty is that one must prove "the asset was purchased with my money" and further prove "I still have rights to this asset."

Individuals applying in the Qian Zhimin case are following the path of confirming property rights.

They applied under Section 281 of the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), hoping to exclude their legally owned assets from the scope of civil recovery by the state.

Recovering losses and claiming portions of property

The buyers in the Foskett case could share the insurance money based on an important premise: the purchase money was originally held in an express trust by the receiving party, giving the buyers ownership rights over the money.

In the Qian Zhimin case, the key link of investment and fund conversion occurred in China. Investors were solicited in China, paid in RMB, the money was put into a Chinese account, and then converted into Bitcoin.

Now, to confirm whether there is a share belonging to investors in these coins, one must look back at what rights were formed after the money was paid. Once the money arrived in the UK, it could not directly turn the original investment relationship into a trust relationship like in the Foskett case.

If just because the scammer later went to the UK, all the transaction relationships formed in China are dealt with according to UK law, the rights of the same investment may change with the scammer's whereabouts. This time, the British court did not accept the applicants' arguments to apply UK substantive law or a mixed application of Chinese and British law, but instead chose to apply Chinese law to make judgments. This is a choice of governing law and does not mean the case is transferred to the Chinese courts; the British courts still adjudicate civil recovery and related applications according to their domestic procedures.

The next step for the victims is to prove their rights under Chinese law, rather than just continue discussing what remedies UK law can provide. However, the ruling does not determine that everyone is left with only the principal debt; the specifics and effects of Chinese law remain to be determined in subsequent stages.

Why does the report say that victims may not be able to obtain significant appreciation? First, let’s look at common handling methods in domestic recovery and restitution.

The Supreme Court's regulations on the execution of criminal judgments involving property require, on the one hand, the recovery of property and income formed from the proceeds of crime, and on the other hand, state that restitution or compensation to victims should be calculated based on the actual losses determined by criminal judgments. While assets may have appreciated, the recovered property could be more; however, the amount of restitution based on actual losses will not be calculated at the increased multiple due to rising currency prices.

For example, if you were scammed out of 100,000 yuan, and the assets appreciated to 10 million yuan. If you can claim this 100,000 yuan loss, recovering 10 million yuan means you are compensated, but it does not mean that the money owed to you has also turned into 10 million yuan. As for what other losses should be compensated for, there must be corresponding legal basis. The market appreciation of Bitcoin cannot be directly considered an additional loss for the victim.

To share in the appreciation, the applicants need to further prove that there is a portion of the property within these coins that legally belongs to them. If this property right is established, what they are striving for is the asset value corresponding to that share, and appreciation may follow the share’s ownership. This is why the applicants referenced the Foskett case and hoped for the application of UK law. Now that the British court requires the application of Chinese law to judge this property right, the original argument relying on UK law to claim a share of assets has been undermined, and whether they can find legal basis under Chinese law has become the next key point.

However, domestic criminal restitution regulations cannot directly determine how this batch of coins will be distributed in the British court.

Tianjin initiates confiscation procedure, can the money come back?

According to reports from The Paper, the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate Court has accepted on September 28 the application for confiscation of illegal gains proposed by the Second Branch of the Tianjin People's Procuratorate, which includes 61,896.41552945 Bitcoin, as well as other virtual currencies, cash, jewelry, and financial assets.

The application reveals that Qian Zhimin actually controlled Lantian Ge Rui, using fraudulent financial products to solicit funds, resulting in losses for over 102,000 fundraising participants. The procuratorial authority claims that, in addition to pursuing the relevant illegal gains, converted property, and benefits, they intend to return a portion to the harmed fundraising participants through lawful means, and they are applying for confiscation. This is the prosecution's application and accusation, and the court has currently accepted the application but has not made a final confiscation ruling, nor is it a ready distribution plan.

Why is this procedure worthy of attention? The Criminal Procedure Law stipulates the confiscation procedures for illegal gains in cases where criminal suspects or defendants have absconded or died. When legal conditions are met, property can be reviewed first without having to wait for the completion of ordinary criminal judgments against the suspects. This announcement corresponds to this special procedure. Qian Zhimin was sentenced in the UK for money laundering, and the handling of the property related to her alleged fundraising fraud in China addresses different issues.

The term "confiscation" should not be understood as meaning that the victims' money must all go into the national treasury. Article 300 of the Criminal Procedure Law excludes the property that should be lawfully returned to victims from confiscation, and the Tianjin procuratorate's application similarly retains the return of a portion to the harmed fundraising participants. What really needs to be examined is which properties should be recovered, which should be returned, which belong to the remaining confiscatable properties, and how to determine each participant’s losses. Recovering assets, returning to victims, and confiscating remaining properties each have legal conditions.

When the Tianjin court accepts the case, will the British currency automatically return?

Cross-border assistance and asset handover are still needed. Articles 47 to 49 of the International Criminal Judicial Assistance Law set forth the pathways for requesting confiscation and return of involved properties to foreign countries, including submitting requests, proof of ownership, legal documents, and negotiating property handover. Domestic rulings can provide legal documents and factual bases for subsequent requests, but whether assistance can be obtained in the UK and how it will connect with local recovery procedures must still be handled according to UK law and applicable assistance mechanisms. One cannot directly write domestic filing into an arrangement has been reached by the two countries for return.

For victims, this means distinguishing between two kinds of claims: participating in domestic clearance, focusing on proving their investments and unpaid losses; requesting confirmation of specific Bitcoin shares in the UK, requiring proof under Chinese law of property rights and how rights extend from the original investment to the seized assets. Transfer vouchers can prove that as a victim, they once paid money, but they may not independently prove ownership of certain coins. Contract provisions, receiving accounts, recovered funds, and records of funds converted into Bitcoin may all influence the judgment. Both procedures also require accurately disclosing the amounts already compensated, so the same loss cannot be repeatedly calculated.

The announcement also provided a very practical piece of information: harmed fundraising participants can apply to participate in litigation through the WeChat mini-program "Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate Court interested parties litigation platform"; not participating in litigation does not affect their right to receive returned funds from the recovery of involved assets. The announcement period is six months, and after it expires, legal proceedings will be conducted. This domestic arrangement cannot be directly extrapolated to mean that there is no need for processing in the UK applications, nor can it guarantee full compensation after being registered domestically.

For ordinary participants, the most practical thing to do now may be to clearly prove the legal basis for property rights and the direction of funds under Chinese law, organizing investment, repayment, and past clearance records. "Principal and interest" need specific bases; the returns promised by illegal fundraising projects cannot be directly considered as payable interest.

The rise in currency value is the market price of assets; how much can be legally claimed is the problem that the law seeks to solve.