#英国高院裁定钱志敏案适用中国法
England’s High Court first determines the applicable law: the $BTC in the Qian Zhimin case will initially be assessed under Chinese law.
[2026] EWHC 2509 (KB), Turner J, judgment handed down remotely on 12 October. In the DPP’s civil recovery proceedings against Qian Zhimin (also known as Yadi Zhang, among other names) and Jian Wen, victims claim under PoCA s.281 that the bitcoin “belongs to them.” At this stage, the court answered only one question: are the substantive issues governed by English law, Chinese law, or a combination of the two? The answer is Chinese law.
The background, as agreed by the parties: between 2014 and 2017, Ponzi schemes including Tianjin Lantian Gerui involved approximately RMB 40.228 billion (about £4.1 billion). Some of the funds were converted into cryptocurrency in China through platforms such as Huobi, then brought into the UK. From 2018, UK police seized devices and some private keys. The assets in question include more than 61,000 $BTC.
The court found that the investment contracts, misrepresentations, payments, and initial cryptocurrency purchases were all centred in China. Both Rome I/Rome II and the common-law conflict-of-laws rules point to Chinese law; English law mainly governs the procedure under PoCA Part 5. The court rejected the victims’ attempt to use English-law routes such as rescission and constructive trust to “get back to” English law.
Important limitation: this is not a final ruling on ownership, nor does it decide how the cryptocurrency should be distributed. The specific rights and evidence under Chinese law are left for the next stage. Screening only, not education—the law applicable to cross-border crypto freezes can matter more than slogans.
Sources: High Court judgment [2026] EWHC 2509 (KB); case summary by Duan & Duan UK LLP; BlockBeats 371450. Not investment advice.
England’s High Court first determines the applicable law: the $BTC in the Qian Zhimin case will initially be assessed under Chinese law.
[2026] EWHC 2509 (KB), Turner J, judgment handed down remotely on 12 October. In the DPP’s civil recovery proceedings against Qian Zhimin (also known as Yadi Zhang, among other names) and Jian Wen, victims claim under PoCA s.281 that the bitcoin “belongs to them.” At this stage, the court answered only one question: are the substantive issues governed by English law, Chinese law, or a combination of the two? The answer is Chinese law.
The background, as agreed by the parties: between 2014 and 2017, Ponzi schemes including Tianjin Lantian Gerui involved approximately RMB 40.228 billion (about £4.1 billion). Some of the funds were converted into cryptocurrency in China through platforms such as Huobi, then brought into the UK. From 2018, UK police seized devices and some private keys. The assets in question include more than 61,000 $BTC.
The court found that the investment contracts, misrepresentations, payments, and initial cryptocurrency purchases were all centred in China. Both Rome I/Rome II and the common-law conflict-of-laws rules point to Chinese law; English law mainly governs the procedure under PoCA Part 5. The court rejected the victims’ attempt to use English-law routes such as rescission and constructive trust to “get back to” English law.
Important limitation: this is not a final ruling on ownership, nor does it decide how the cryptocurrency should be distributed. The specific rights and evidence under Chinese law are left for the next stage. Screening only, not education—the law applicable to cross-border crypto freezes can matter more than slogans.
Sources: High Court judgment [2026] EWHC 2509 (KB); case summary by Duan & Duan UK LLP; BlockBeats 371450. Not investment advice.