DPP v Zhimin Qian: Bitcoin Claims & Chinese Law

DPP v Zhimin Qian and the rights behind a cross-border asset recovery claim

More than 61,000 Bitcoin were among the assets seized by the Metropolitan Police in the proceedings involving Zhimin Qian. Finding and securing those assets left a separate question for the alleged victims: which law governs the rights they rely on to claim ownership?

On 12 October 2026, the High Court of England and Wales answered that question in Director of Public Prosecutions v Zhimin Qian & Anor [2026] EWHC 2509 (KB). Chinese law governs the rights relied on in the victims’ claims. The English civil recovery framework still applies. The judgment did not decide whether any victim owns the Bitcoin, or determine the content of Chinese law. (Judgment, paras 2–4, 242–246.)

For a business or investor assessing a cross-border recovery claim, the useful distinction is between locating assets and establishing the right to claim them. In this case, the court looked closely at the earlier transactions in China. The Bitcoin’s later presence in England did not itself supply an English-law ownership claim.

The transactions behind the Bitcoin

The hearing proceeded on agreed assumed facts. No evidence had yet been filed on the precise basis of individual claims or the content of Chinese law. That qualification matters whenever the judgment’s account of the scheme is repeated. (Paras 3–5.)

On those facts, Qian established a company in Tianjin in 2014 and orchestrated Ponzi schemes in China between 2014 and July 2017. The known investors were Chinese nationals living in China when they invested. They paid in Chinese currency, through cards, cash or bank transfers, into accounts held at Chinese banks. Some of the money was converted into Bitcoin in China before Qian left. She arrived in London in September 2017. (Para 5, assumed facts 1–8, 10–19 and 22.)

An audit identified at least 128,409 investment contracts. That figure is not a confirmed count of victims. Some investors signed contracts; others paid without signing written documents. Certain contracts referred to Chinese law or the courts in Tianjin. These details help explain why the court treated the underlying dealings as centred in China. They also show why each claimant’s records will matter at a later stage. (Para 5, assumed facts 10–13.)

Why a right to repayment was insufficient

The Director of Public Prosecutions brought civil recovery proceedings under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA). This allows an enforcement authority to seek recovery of property obtained through unlawful conduct without first obtaining a criminal conviction. (Paras 14–16.)

Section 281 gives a person who claims that property belongs to them a route to seek a declaration that takes it outside civil recovery. The applicant must meet the statutory conditions: they were deprived of the property, or property it represents, by unlawful conduct; it was not already recoverable property immediately before that deprivation; and the property claimed belongs to them. (Paras 18–23.)

The last condition requires a proprietary interest: an interest in the property itself. A personal claim against the fraudster for repayment is insufficient. As Turner J explained, section 281 does not create a general compensation scheme for everyone who lost money through crime. (Para 19.)

That distinction affects the evidence a claimant needs. Records showing a payment and a loss may support a debt or damages claim. To claim particular assets under section 281, the applicant must also establish the property right on which that claim depends. The applicable law determines whether the earlier dealings gave rise to such a right and what happened to it as the funds changed form.

How the court approached the four arguments

The court chose the applicable law issue by issue. Calling a claim “proprietary”, or describing the requested remedy as a trust, did not settle which legal rules applied. Turner J considered the EU-derived Rome I and Rome II Regulations, which remain part of English law, and the common law rules for property questions. (Paras 27–32, 38–46.)

Undoing the investment contracts

The applicants’ first argument relied on rescission: undoing investment contracts induced by fraud. They said rescission could support a constructive trust over the payments and their proceeds, which could then be traced into the Bitcoin.

The court examined the questions behind that argument, including whether the contracts were void or voidable, whether any right to rescind had been exercised effectively, and the consequences. Turner J held that these fell within Rome I’s rules on contractual obligations and the consequences of nullity. Chinese law applied. The claim’s proposed proprietary result did not remove the need to determine those earlier questions under the appropriate law. (Paras 55–72.)

The alternative analyses led to the same answer. Under Rome II, the fraud, relevant damage and relationships were centred in China. Under the common law property analysis, the court examined the transactions said to give rise to the rights. The applicants had identified no later dealings with the Bitcoin in England that generated a distinct proprietary issue requiring separate analysis. (Paras 152–186, particularly 182.)

A trust arising when the payments were received

The second argument was that the investment contracts were instruments of fraud, so the recipients held the payments on constructive trust from the outset. That argument also depended on events in China. The court again held that Chinese law governed the relevant issues. (Paras 187–199.)

The two trust arguments could be pleaded as alternatives, but the legal consequences of a particular payment were not something a claimant could simply choose. Whether ownership passed, remained with the investor or could be recovered through rescission depended on the applicable law and facts.

Using PoCA’s tracing provisions

The third argument relied on sections 305 and 306 of PoCA. Those provisions help identify recoverable property through substitutions and mixtures. The applicants sought to use similar reasoning to identify property belonging to them.

The court rejected that step. The statutory rules define what the state can recover; they do not create or enlarge victims’ proprietary rights. The separate requirement to establish that the property belongs to the applicant remained. (Paras 200–213.)

Adding English trust remedies to Chinese-law obligations

The fourth argument accepted that Chinese law might govern the underlying obligations but proposed that English law could give those obligations proprietary effect through a constructive trust.

Turner J rejected that approach where Rome I or Rome II requires the relevant foreign law to apply. English equitable concepts could not be added to expand the remedies available under that law. He expressly left open the position in a case falling outside both Regulations. That limit should be kept in view when applying this part of the judgment elsewhere. (Paras 220–233.)

What tracing can prove, and what remains undecided

Tracing can identify where value went as money was exchanged for other assets. It cannot, by itself, supply the property right needed to claim those assets. Turner J explained that if rights were lost under Chinese law when the Bitcoin was acquired, English tracing principles could not restore them. He did not decide that the claimants had in fact lost those rights. (Para 137.)

The same care is needed with the absence of Chinese-law evidence. The applicants argued that English law should apply because Chinese law had not yet been pleaded or proved. The court kept two questions separate: identifying the applicable law and proving what that law provides. The preliminary hearing concerned the first. The missing evidence did not turn the dispute into an English-law case. (Paras 235–241.)

The content and effect of Chinese law, and the facts supporting individual claims, remain to be established. This judgment therefore provides no basis for predicting either repayment or defeat. It also leaves other questions open, including whether section 281 carries a residual discretion even when its stated conditions are met. (Paras 3–4, 20, 69, 246.)

What Hong Kong businesses and investors can take from it

This is an English first-instance judgment. It does not bind Hong Kong courts, and the Rome Regulations do not apply in Hong Kong. Any Hong Kong claim requires analysis under Hong Kong’s own rules. The English court’s alternative common law reasoning may nevertheless be relevant when lawyers consider comparable cross-border issues.

Hong Kong has recognised cryptocurrency as property capable of being held on trust in Re Gatecoin Ltd (in liquidation) [2023] HKCFI 914, at paragraph 59. That classification does not establish who owns particular cryptocurrency. The terms and events through which rights arose still need examination.

For an investor whose payments were made in one jurisdiction and whose alleged proceeds are found in another, the Qian decision is a reason to investigate the original transactions early. A recovery strategy needs to address both the asset trail and the legal basis of the claim. A governing-law clause addresses the law applicable to the contract; a jurisdiction clause addresses where disputes are heard. They perform different jobs, and neither should be read in isolation from the issues in dispute.

Preserve the records that can support that analysis:

Contracts, including governing-law and jurisdiction clauses, and any account or investment terms.
Promotional material, messages and other records of the representations made before payment.
Bank or card statements showing who paid whom, where and when.
Wallet addresses, transaction IDs and records linking transfers or conversions to the investment.

If an overseas authority or receiver holds assets you believe are yours, bring those records to an early discussion about the available claims, applicable law and procedural deadlines. For a Hong Kong business, this is also a useful discipline when instructing lawyers in more than one jurisdiction: explain the transaction history as carefully as the current location of the assets.

TITUS Solicitors advises on commercial disputes, fraud and crypto asset recovery. To discuss a cross-border dispute or recovery matter with our Hong Kong team, contact TITUS at info@titus.com.hk or call +852 3702 0045.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. TITUS advises on Hong Kong law. Advice on English or Chinese law should be obtained from lawyers qualified in the relevant jurisdiction. This article addresses the judgment of 12 October 2026; the judgment leaves issues for later determination, and subsequent decisions may affect the position.