Qian Zhimin’s 60k BTC case key developments: Lantian Gerui enters the fray through litigation to take over the receiver, as a dispute over the applicability of Chinese and English law moves into a direct face-off

Mars Finance news: According to a report by Caixin, the case involving Qian Zhiming’s 60,000 Bitcoins held a three-day hearing from July 7 to July 9, 2026, and Lantian Gerui Company formally joined the dispute over Bitcoin rights through a court-appointed receiver. The Bitcoin dispute has shifted from a “two-party contest” to a “three-party race”: (1) the UK prosecution (DPP) argues that the assets should be recovered and reclaimed by the state; (2) Chinese victims argue that they are entitled to property-right-type interests in the Bitcoins, which can be traced and have risen substantially in value; (3) the litigation receiver for Lantian Gerui Company argues that the Bitcoins are substitute assets formed after Qian Zhiming misappropriated the company’s funds.

It is understood that the Bitcoins involved were valued at about 427,000 yuan per coin in July this year, which is 152 times the cost price (2815 yuan per coin) when Qian Zhiming purchased them in 2014. If the applicant can successfully assert its property-right-type interests in the relevant Bitcoin assets, the amount that can be recovered is not limited to the original investment loss, and can also extend to the Bitcoin appreciation gains. The litigation receiver, acting on behalf of Lantian Gerui Company, believes that the Bitcoins involved are essentially converted from misappropriated company assets, and that the company has the right to trace them and claim property-right-type interests.

At the same time, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the UK continues to insist that Chinese law should apply. The lead law firm representing the individual victims has put forward four sets of complementary legal arguments, attempting to ensure that the victims’ claims do not fail overall due to rejection along any single legal path; they are: (1) if the Bitcoins are in the UK, English law should apply; (2) the investment contract is a fraud, and after rescission, the beneficial interest reverts to the victims; (3) the tracing mechanisms under Sections 305 and 306 of POCA should also apply to the victims; (4) use a “mixed structure” to break the either-or choice between Chinese and UK law.