A hearing is held in Qian Zhiming’s case involving 60,000 BTC; the court-appointed takeover administrator joins the dispute over rights in the litigation brought by Lantian Ge Rui Company.

ME News, July 12 (UTC+8): A three-day hearing was held from July 7 to 9, 2026 for the case involving Qian Zhimin and 60,000 Bitcoin. Lantian Gersui (Blue Sky Grui) Co. formally joined the dispute over Bitcoin rights by way of litigation-appointed receivership, shifting the battle over Bitcoin from a “two-party contest” to a “three-party competition.”

UK prosecutors argue that the assets should be recovered by the state; Chinese victims argue that they have proprietary rights in the assets that can be traced to Bitcoin that has since risen in value substantially; and the litigation-appointed receiver for Lantian Gersui argues that the Bitcoin was substitute property formed after Qian Zhimin embezzled company funds.

The Bitcoin involved was valued at about 427,000 yuan per coin in July this year, representing a 152-fold increase compared with the 2,815 yuan cost when Qian Zhimin purchased it in 2014. If the applicant is successful in asserting its proprietary rights over the relevant Bitcoin assets, the recoverable amount would not be limited to the original investment loss, but could also extend to gains from Bitcoin’s appreciation. The litigation-appointed receiver representing Lantian Gersui believes that, in essence, the Bitcoin in question was converted from misappropriated company assets, and that the company has the right to trace and assert proprietary rights.

The Director of Public Prosecutions in the UK continues to insist that Chinese law should apply. A leading law firm representing individual victims submitted four sets of legal arguments: first, that Bitcoin should be governed by UK law in the UK; second, that the investment contract is a scam, and that after rescission, beneficial interests revert to the victims; third, that the tracing mechanisms under POCA Articles 305 and 306 should also apply to the victims; and fourth, that the “either/or” choice between UK and China law should be broken through a “mixed architecture” argument. (Source: ODAILY)