At a glance

  • On 12 Oct, Mr Justice Turner held in Director of Public Prosecutions v Zhimin Qian & Anor [2026] EWHC 2509 (KB) that Chinese law, not English law, governs the proprietary issues under section 281 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
  • The Property includes more than 61,000 bitcoin. Whether any applicant can show that property “belongs to” them under Chinese law is a later step. No evidence of Chinese law has yet been heard.

What the court decided

The claim sits inside civil recovery proceedings brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Alleged victims applied under s.281 for declarations that seized property belongs to them. The preliminary issue was only which law applies to that proprietary question.

The judgment records assumed facts agreed for this hearing: Zhimin Qian orchestrated Ponzi schemes in China between 2014 and 2017; investors paid in China; more than 100,000 bitcoin were bought on a Huobi account controlled by or for her before she left China; London police seized devices and keys in October–November 2018 (with further seizures later); the Property includes more than 61,000 bitcoin.

Turner J characterised the core contractual and related issues under Rome I (retained as assimilated law) and concluded that, on those assumed facts, Chinese law applies. Recourse to English equitable constructs to recharacterise the same issues as “property” claims that escape Rome I was rejected for this stage. Applicants must still prove a proprietary interest; a mere personal claim for repayment is not enough under s.281.

What it does not decide

The ruling does not award the bitcoin to the UK Treasury or to the applicants. It does not assess Chinese property law. It does not value the coins. Secondary reports have put the haul near £3.8 billion or about $5 billion at recent prices; those are outlet mark-to-markets, not findings in the judgment.

CoinDesk and The Block frame the choice-of-law outcome as improving the government’s relative position. CryptoTimes, citing the Financial Times, says victims’ lawyers have indicated they intend to appeal. Those are secondary accounts; the judgment itself sets the next forensic task: evidence on Chinese law and on each applicant’s claim.

What happens next

The High Court will need evidence of Chinese law and individual proprietary proofs before any s.281 declarations. Any appeal timetable will depend on how the parties proceed after the 12 Oct hand-down. Separately, Qian was sentenced in November 2025 after pleading guilty to money-laundering offences — background already covered by UK outlets, not re-litigated here.

This article is for information only and is not investment advice. It is not legal advice.