Where there are many trees, there are all kinds of birds—and the world of cryptocurrency is no exception. In the days when Bitcoin was worthless and stablecoins had not yet emerged, this circle was just a small-scale self-entertainment. But as Bitcoin rose from "10,000 coins for two pizzas" to "one coin for 10,000 pizzas," everything changed. Especially after the emergence of stablecoins, due to their characteristics, they gradually became a preferred money laundering tool for black and gray industries.
Having been engaged in criminal defense for many years, I have handled many cryptocurrency cases. One prominent feeling is that there seem to be an unusually large number of "unlucky" people in this field: some who clearly should not be convicted are found guilty, while others who are clearly suspected of crimes find it difficult to even get a case filed.
Perhaps立场影响判断, some cases that I see as problematic may be viewed by the police, procuratorate, or court as "not a big issue" or even "handled properly."
Two cases I am currently handling are closely related to this theme and are quite representative. Through this article, I would like to discuss the current situation and dilemmas of cryptocurrency criminal cases based on practical experience.
Reproduction of Real Case Details
Case One
A company from country H planned to list its token on an exchange whose servers are located in country S and contacted a Chinese business employee of the exchange. The two parties smoothly negotiated the service fees and listing cycle, agreeing that the H company would pay 800,000 USDT as a service fee, after which the exchange would initiate the listing process.
After the agreement was reached, the Chinese business employee provided the H company with a wallet address and requested the transfer of 800,000 USDT. After the H company complied, the business employee immediately exited all related group chats and completely disappeared. When the H company noticed something was wrong, they immediately contacted the S country exchange, which replied that the employee had resigned the day after the transfer and that the exchange had not received the service fee. At this point, the H company confirmed that it had been scammed.
Case Two
A woman met someone online who claimed to be able to guide her in investments. The other party informed her that the investment platform did not accept RMB and only supported USDT transactions. Since the woman did not have USDT, the other party recommended a U merchant to assist with the exchange.
Subsequently, she contacted the U merchant via WeChat and, as requested, transferred a total of over three million RMB to multiple bank accounts. However, after the transfer was completed, she did not receive the corresponding USDT, and no funds were deposited into her investment platform account. When she tried to contact the网友 who had recommended the investment, the other party had already disappeared. At this point, she realized that she had encountered a scam.
Lawyer's Perspective: Ways to Save Clients' Rights
Case One: Cross-border Reporting Obstacles and Legal Basis交涉
In Case One, the client (the H company) initially went to the household registration地 police station of the Chinese business employee to report the case. However, the police neither issued a receipt for the report nor issued a notice of non-filing, preventing the client from initiating subsequent relief procedures.
After accepting the commission, our lawyers began preparing legal documents and evidence materials that met domestic reporting requirements. Due to the跨国因素 of the case, the material preparation took about two to three months.
Subsequently, we went to the suspect's household registration地 police station to formally report the case. The window auxiliary police initially refused to accept the case on the grounds that "the victim company is not in the country." We当场 cited the provisions on territorial jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction in the "Criminal Procedure Law" to refute this. The other party then said that "cryptocurrency is not protected by law." and we further pointed out that according to the "9.24 Notice," although exchange business is prohibited, personal holding of virtual assets is not illegal, and judicial practice generally recognizes that virtual coins have property attributes.
Despite多次据理力争, the police still refused to issue a written receipt. Under our insistence, the auxiliary police finally contacted the duty police officer to come to the scene. After multiple rounds of交涉 and our continuous efforts, the case has now been accepted by the police station, but has not yet been formally filed. We are still continuously pushing for it.
Case Two: Difficulties in Recovery After Criminal Filing and Attempts at Civil途径
In Case Two, the client (the deceived woman) reported the case smoothly. The police quickly filed the case and launched an investigation, successfully arresting the U merchant who provided the exchange service. However, because the main scam suspect's IP address was located overseas, they could not be apprehended.
After interrogation and investigation, the police confirmed that the U merchant was merely a businessperson engaged in单纯 USDT exchange and had no criminal connection with the upstream fraud group. Therefore, the investigation against him was terminated.
To help the client recover her losses, we attempted to use civil litigation, planning to sue the U merchant on the grounds of "unjust enrichment" and request the return of the corresponding funds.
Case Review: Problems with Civil Rights Protection
In Case One, the situation cannot be resolved through civil litigation.
The main reason is that when the same facts involve both criminal and civil cases, the principle of "criminal priority" should be followed. It is necessary to wait until the criminal case is completed before initiating civil proceedings. Furthermore, if the criminal judgment has already dealt with the victim's property rights—for example, if the judgment states "continue to return the property to the victim"—then the victim can no longer file a civil lawsuit based on the same facts, as this would violate the basic principle of "ne bis in idem" in civil litigation.
So, if the client gives up reporting the case due to the long cycle of criminal cases and directly files a civil lawsuit with the court, is it feasible?
Theoretically, it is possible to sue, but if the court, upon review, believes that a crime is involved, it will rule to transfer the case to the public security organ for handling. In this way, the procedure will still return to the criminal途径,反而额外耗费数月时间.
If the suspect is ultimately convicted but is unable to make restitution, how should the victim protect their rights?
At this point, one can only hope whether the suspect is willing to compensate in exchange for a reduced sentence. According to relevant regulations, if an罪犯 fails to fulfill property刑 obligations such as restitution and fines, they are generally not eligible for减刑 or假释 and must serve their full original sentence.
In Case Two, although we did attempt to file a civil lawsuit against the U merchant and retrieved a large number of similar cases, the results showed that only two judgments supported the plaintiff's claims, while the rest ended with the plaintiff losing. Why?
During the filing stage of this case, the filing judge clearly stated that it could not be accepted and直言 that even if it was勉强 accepted, our claims would ultimately not be supported. In the end, the civil case could not be accepted.
Summary
After cryptocurrency is stolen or scammed, can it be effectively relieved through civil途径?
This article initially also planned to use this as a topic for科普, but after深入实务, it was found that: once a case involves a criminal offense, the path to civil relief is actually extremely difficult, or even completely impassable.
Perhaps some readers will question that many articles on the market have detailed how to protect rights through civil litigation, including evidence preparation,起诉流程, etc. Why does it become "impassable" in this article?
As we personally experienced in Case Two, the filing judge clearly stated: even if the case is accepted, the hope of winning is extremely slim.
As lawyers, our responsibility is not only to initiate procedures but also to assess risks for clients and choose paths that truly have the potential to recover losses. Therefore, in cases where cryptocurrency is stolen or scammed, pursuing recovery through criminal途径 remains a more realistic choice at present.
