Supreme Court Plans to Develop Judicial Rules for Virtual Currencies

Supreme Court Plans to Develop Judicial Rules for Virtual Currencies: Moving from "Different Judgments in Similar Cases" to a Unified Judicial Standard
On May 27, 2026, Supreme People's Court Justice Liu Guixiang stated at a State Council Information Office press conference that the People's Court will conduct in-depth research on new types of cases such as virtual currencies and cross-border finance. This continues the reform deployment of the Supreme Court's previous statement that "will improve the judicial rules for financial disputes in emerging fields such as digital currencies," marking a new stage where judicial responses to civil disputes related to virtual currencies are moving from scattered decisions by local courts to a unified national standard.
For a long time, China has maintained a prohibitive regulatory attitude toward activities related to virtual currencies, but has not denied certain attributes of virtual currencies as "online virtual property." Due to the lack of specialized judicial interpretations, serious disagreements have arisen in judicial practice: some regional courts directly dismiss lawsuits on the grounds of violating public order and good morals; some regions determine that entrusted investment and loan contracts are invalid due to violations of mandatory legal provisions, and share losses based on fault proportion; there are also a few cases supporting the return of specific amounts of virtual currency. The phenomenon of inconsistent judgments in similar cases is prominent, and issues such as difficulty in enforcement and lack of standards for value assessment of virtual currencies have long troubled judicial practice.
The proposed judicial rules are expected to focus on addressing three core issues: first, the distinction of contract validity—transactions using virtual currency as a payment tool or for speculation are deemed invalid, but protections are limited for holding on behalf of property with virtual asset attributes and for disputes over refunds; second, the loss-sharing mechanism—responsibility is determined according to Article 157 of the Civil Code based on the fault level of the parties, rather than simply "rejecting" the case; third, enforcement and technical fact-finding—clarifying that when return is possible, it should be explicitly stated in the judgment, and exploring judicial review standards for evidence such as blockchain addresses and private key control.
It should be emphasized that developing judicial rules does not mean relaxing the ban on virtual currency trading. The regulatory red lines—prohibiting the exchange of legal currency and virtual currency, banning token issuance and fundraising, and prohibiting virtual currencies as a means of payment—will remain unchanged. The significance of the new regulations lies in providing operational guidance for handling actual civil disputes while maintaining financial security, thereby protecting the legitimate property rights of parties involved.