--- title: "UK High Court Considers Applicable Law in Multi-Billion Pound Bitcoin Forfeiture" description: "Victims of a £4.1 billion Chinese Ponzi scheme run by Zhimin Qian seek proprietary claims over billions in seized Bitcoin under English law." url: https://basisdesk.news/news/uk-high-court-bitcoin-seizure-zhimin-qian-ponzi published: 2026-10-13T09:11:18.194Z modified: 2026-10-13T09:11:18.194Z section: Regulation & Policy author: Basis Desk Newsroom (AI-generated, source-verified) sentiment: neutral tickers: [BTC] tags: [bitcoin, high-court, seizure, crime-proceeds, uk, china] license: Quote with attribution to Basis Desk (basisdesk.news). Not financial advice. --- # UK High Court Considers Applicable Law in Multi-Billion Pound Bitcoin Forfeiture Victims of a £4.1 billion Chinese Ponzi scheme run by Zhimin Qian seek proprietary claims over billions in seized Bitcoin under English law. ## At a glance - **What happened:** The UK High Court opened hearings to determine whether English or Chinese law governs claims to billions in Bitcoin seized from fraudster Zhimin Qian. - **Why it matters:** The ruling will set legal precedent on how cross-border victims can assert proprietary ownership over cryptocurrency forfeited under the Proceeds of Crime Act. - **Who is affected:** Chinese fraud victims, the UK Director of Public Prosecutions, and defendant Zhimin Qian. - **What's next:** The court will rule on the choice-of-law issue before evaluating individual proprietary claims by affected investors. - **Status:** court-ruling - **Primary source:** [Director of Public Prosecutions v Zhimin Qian & Anor - Find Case Law](https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/2509) — caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk ## Key points - UK DPP seized billions of pounds in Bitcoin tied to a £4.1 billion Chinese Ponzi scheme operated by Zhimin Qian. - At least 128,409 investment contracts were entered into by Chinese victims prior to Qian's flight to London in 2017. - The English High Court must decide whether English or Chinese law governs Section 281 claims to the seized cryptocurrency. ## Editorial remark - **Context:** Zhimin Qian established Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology in 2014, operating unlicensed Ponzi schemes that collected RMB 40.2 billion before Chinese authorities froze domestic accounts in July 2017. - **Impact:** More than 128,000 Chinese contract holders face legal hurdles to demonstrate proprietary rights over seized Bitcoin currently held under UK Proceeds of Crime Act jurisdiction. - **Watch:** The High Court's impending decision on whether English or Chinese conflict-of-laws principles will govern evidentiary requirements for the victims' restitution claims. The English High Court of Justice has initiated proceedings to determine which legal framework governs claims brought by victims seeking to recover billions of pounds worth of seized Bitcoin [1]. The Director of Public Prosecutions recovered the assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 after investigating a fraudulent operation orchestrated by Chinese national Zhimin Qian [1]. According to an agreed statement of assumed facts filed with the court, Qian set up Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology Co Limited in March 2014, orchestrating approximately 10 Ponzi schemes that took in 40,228,350,969 Chinese renminbi (roughly £4.1 billion) between 2014 and 2017 [1]. The company, which was never licensed to sell financial products, marketed schemes involving digital currency, insurance services, and purification devices across China [1]. Qian fled China into Myanmar in July 2017 to avoid arrest and entered London in September 2017, where she has lived since [1]. In her basis of plea dated Sept. 29, 2025, Qian conceded that the schemes were unlawful under Chinese law [1]. ## Jurisdictional Conflict Over Seized Crypto The disputed assets consist mostly of $BTC seized by UK authorities, which are now contested by thousands of Chinese investors under Section 281 of the Proceeds of Crime Act [1]. An audit referenced in court documents identified at least 128,409 investment contracts signed in connection with the fraud [1]. The High Court must now decide whether English law, Chinese law, or a hybrid of both applies to adjudicate whether victims hold direct proprietary interests in the recovered funds [1]. The proceedings represent one of the largest cryptocurrency forfeiture disputes globally, aligning with broader cross-border enforcement efforts documented as [regulators claw back millions in crypto fraud and theft cases](https://basisdesk.news/analysis/regulators-claw-back-millions-crypto-fraud-theft) [1]. Justice Turner noted that no evidence has yet been presented regarding Chinese law or the individual factual basis of each claim, leaving the applicable conflict-of-laws principles as the opening hurdle for the litigation [1]. At the time of writing, $BTC traded at $83,457. ## Sources 1. [Director of Public Prosecutions v Zhimin Qian & Anor - Find Case Law](https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/2509) — caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk, 2026-10-13 --- Basis Desk Newsroom · AI-generated, source-verified · https://basisdesk.news/about/how-we-use-ai