[Key Development in Qian Zhimin's 60,000 Bitcoin Case: Company Administrator Joins, Direct Clash Over Applicability of Chinese and English Law] Golden Finance reports that Caixin disclosed the latest key development in the case of Qian Zhimin's 60,000 bitcoins. A three-day hearing was held from July 7 to July 9, 2026. Through litigation, the administrator of Blue Sky Gray Company officially joined the battle for bitcoin ownership, turning the dispute from a 'two-party confrontation' into a 'three-party competition': 1. The UK Prosecution (DPP) argues that the assets should be confiscated by the state; 2. Chinese victims claim they hold property rights to the bitcoins, which can be traced and have significantly appreciated in value; 3. The litigation administrator for Blue Sky Gray Company asserts that the bitcoins are substitute assets derived from funds embezzled from the company by Qian Zhimin. It is reported that the bitcoins involved in the case were valued at approximately 427,000 yuan per coin in July this year, a 152-fold increase from the purchase cost of 2,815 yuan per coin in 2014 when Qian Zhimin acquired them. If the applicants successfully assert their property rights over the bitcoin assets, the recoverable amount would not be limited to the original investment losses but could also include the appreciation in value. The litigation administrator representing Blue Sky Gray Company argues that the bitcoins in question essentially originated from misappropriated company funds and that the company has the right to trace and claim property rights over them. Meanwhile, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the UK continues to insist that Chinese law should apply. The lead law firm representing the individual victims has proposed four complementary legal arguments to prevent the victims' claims from failing entirely due to the rejection of any single legal pathway. These arguments are as follows: 1. Since the bitcoins are in the UK, UK law should apply; 2. The investment contract was fraudulent, and upon its annulment, the beneficiaries' rights should revert to the victims; 3. The tracing mechanisms under Sections 305 and 306 of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) should also apply to the victims; 4. A 'hybrid framework' should be used to break the binary choice between Chinese and English law.