High Court rules Chinese law decides victims' claims to Qian's 61,000 seized Bitcoin

What happened

On 12 October 2026, the High Court in London decided a preliminary question in Director of Public Prosecutions v Zhimin Qian & Anor [2026] EWHC 2509 (KB). Alleged victims of Zhimin Qian’s frauds are applying under section 281 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA), each asserting a proprietary interest in assets the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has recovered. Mr Justice Turner had to decide which country’s law governs those claims.

His answer was Chinese law. “Whether the issues are analysed under Rome I, Rome II or the common-law rules of private international law, the result is the same,” he wrote. He rejected all four of the applicants’ arguments for English law or a hybrid. He also rejected their submission that English law should apply by default until Chinese law is proved.

The ruling rests on an agreed statement of assumed facts. On those facts, Qian ran around ten Ponzi schemes in China between 2014 and July 2017, and the victims were all Chinese residents when they invested. Funds received totalled approximately RMB 40.2 billion, about £4.1 billion. Some of the money was converted into Bitcoin before Qian fled China in 2017. The Metropolitan Police seized devices and keys in 2018 and further assets in April 2024, and the seized property includes more than 61,000 Bitcoin.

Why it matters

Section 281 only protects owners. The judge noted that showing a right to claim against the fraudsters for the money paid over would not be enough. Each applicant has to show that the property “belongs to” them, and Chinese law will now answer that question.

The judgment does not decide who gets the Bitcoin or how much any victim recovers. The content of Chinese law, and its effect on each claim, is left for a later stage, and no evidence on it has yet been heard. Reading the ruling as a final loss for the victims goes further than the court did.

“The Applicants parted with their money in China,” the judge wrote, and the representations and contracts were made there too. The agreed facts also trace a long route to recovery. Money that entered promoters’ personal bank accounts in China moved into Bitcoin through an exchange account in an associate’s name, and was seized in London years later.

Practitioner angle

• When supporting fraud victims in recovery proceedings, establish early whether each claim is proprietary or a creditor claim, because section 281 only helps owners.
• Record where victims paid, where representations were made, and which law each contract names. Those facts decided the governing law here.
• For source of wealth reviews on large crypto holdings, ask when and where the coins were acquired, as well as which wallet holds them today.
• Watch the next stage. The court’s findings on Chinese law are likely to shape how foreign victims approach UK civil recovery cases.

In any recovery file with foreign victims, map the governing law of each payment and contract before arguing about tracing.