Source: China Newsweek
"Qian Zhimin"—this name has not appeared before Ge Qiu for several years, and discussions around this name and the Blue Sky Gerui investment case behind it have gradually faded. Until the past two months, the nearly 400-member rights protection group she is in became lively again, with members sharing lawyers' interpretations and various short videos about the case's progress.
On November 11 local time, Qian Zhimin, the main perpetrator of the Tianjin Blue Sky Gerui major illegal fundraising case and the largest bitcoin money laundering case in UK history, was sentenced to 11 years and 8 months in prison in the UK. As the criminal part of the case concluded, public attention shifted to cross-border asset recovery.
In this case, UK police locked down 61,000 bitcoins, and according to UK judicial documents, these bitcoins were mainly purchased with proceeds from Qian Zhimin's criminal activities in China. According to plan, the UK Supreme Court was supposed to hold another hearing on November 17 to discuss the disposal of the 61,000 bitcoins, but it was later announced that the hearing would be postponed to January 2026.
A lawyer who has participated in Qian Zhimin's case hearings multiple times told China Newsweek that currently, UK courts are conducting both criminal proceedings and civil asset recovery proceedings, with different participants and courts for each. Some criminal evidence may be used in the civil recovery process, but it takes time for participants and courts in the civil process to become familiar with this evidence, so the postponement of the hearing is understandable.
Due to the surge in bitcoin prices, the market value of the involved bitcoins once approached 50 billion yuan. Whether victims can expect full compensation, or even "profit" due to the rise in coin value, and who should enjoy the appreciation, has become one of the focal points of discussion in this case.
Yan Lixin, professor at Fudan University’s School of International Finance and executive director of Fudan University’s China Anti-Money Laundering Research Center, told China Newsweek that this bitcoin money laundering case is not only an "epic" case in the field of digital currency anti-money laundering, but also a complex legal, diplomatic, and geopolitical game—a battle over "ownership" and "jurisdiction." "Our core demand is very clear—returning the assets to their rightful owners, that is, returning them to the Chinese victims."
Not Just 61,000 Bitcoins
Recalling the past seven or eight years, Zheng Zhengge described it as "losing everything, family broken." In 2016, through a friend's introduction, this teacher with modest income came into contact with an investment project called "Blue Sky Gerui."
At that time, Blue Sky Gerui claimed to be jointly developing elderly care projects with local governments and portrayed smart elderly care as a future trend. Zheng Zhengge did not trust private companies, but the claim of "government cooperation" lowered his guard. To get on this wealth train, he maxed out his credit cards and took out salary loans, investing over one million yuan in total.
The myth collapsed unexpectedly. Over the years, he has been struggling in a quagmire of debt, with more than 100,000 yuan still unpaid. At his most desperate, due to overdue loans, he was blacklisted on credit, and his salary card was frozen for three or four years. As a teacher, he attended classes on time but could not get paid, while his child at home was waiting for money to attend college.
Meanwhile, Qian Zhimin, who "harvested" the "investors," from June 2014, instructed "front figures" to open accounts on the cryptocurrency exchange Huobi, systematically converting investor funds into crypto assets. The UK Supreme Court's judgment detailed this process.
The person wearing a mask on the far right is Qian Zhimin (file photo)
When Qian Zhimin arrived in the UK in September 2017, he had about 70,000 bitcoins, worth 305 million pounds. In October 2018, London police first searched his residence in Hampstead, discovering 163,000 pounds in cash and evidence of the transfer and conversion of more than 18,800 bitcoins, gradually locking down clues to about 61,000 bitcoins.
According to previous reports by China Newsweek, a special audit showed that from August 2014 to July 2017, Blue Sky Gerui absorbed more than 40.2 billion yuan in funds, all controlled by Qian Zhimin. From April 2014 to August 2017, Blue Sky Gerui returned more than 34.1 billion yuan to 128,409 people, and another 1.14 billion yuan was used to purchase bitcoin.
Documents obtained by the media from UK courts also show that Qian Zhimin bought a total of 194,951 bitcoins, higher than the 61,000 locked by police. The court did not disclose the whereabouts of the remaining 120,000+ bitcoins. This means that Qian Zhimin's assets likely include bitcoins that have not yet been discovered or confiscated. In an interview with UK media, London Metropolitan Police detective Joe Ryan revealed that Qian Zhimin claimed to have "lost the password" to a wallet containing 20,000 bitcoins. At the latest market price, just these "lost" bitcoins are worth about 12.5 billion yuan.
The UK Supreme Court expressed particular sympathy for the plight of these "investors." On November 11, 2025, during Qian Zhimin's sentencing, UK judge Sally-Ann Hales specifically pointed out that although the funds currently seized are sufficient to repay investors, this does not erase the real harm suffered by victims beyond money: "Some lost their homes, suffered physical and mental health damage, marriages and family relationships broke down, and 'shame' was a recurring and common feeling."
The court ruled that, given Qian Zhimin's role in the crime, the sentence needed to be increased from the prescribed 10 years, and after comprehensive consideration, his sentence was finally set at 11 years and 8 months.
Since his arrest in the UK in April 2024, Qian Zhimin has repeatedly claimed innocence. However, he pleaded guilty on the first day of this trial, and some public opinion believes it is likely that the UK side obtained evidence assistance from Chinese law enforcement agencies.
On October 30, 2025, the Hedong Branch of the Tianjin Public Security Bureau issued a statement saying that Tianjin public security authorities had carried out in-depth international cooperation with UK law enforcement agencies through international law enforcement and judicial cooperation channels to do their utmost to recover losses for fundraising participants.
In addition, the "Blue Sky Gerui Case Liquidation Working Group" of the Hedong District Finance Bureau in Tianjin also issued a notice reminding unregistered fundraising participants in the Blue Sky Gerui case to verify their information between October 31, 2025, and December 29, 2025. The notice stated: "This verification will serve as the basis for the return of liquidation funds. Relevant fundraising participants are requested to verify within the specified period."
"The biggest highlight of this case is the breakthrough in 'intelligence exchange' and 'mutual recognition of evidence.' Although there was no extradition, UK police recognized the basic facts of the upstream fraud crime provided by Chinese police, which is very rare," Yan Lixin told China Newsweek.
The head of the Economic and Cyber Crime Command of the London Metropolitan Police also stated that Qian Zhimin's conviction marks "the result of years of joint efforts by (UK) police and Chinese law enforcement agencies."
The office location of Blue Sky Gerui in Fujian Building, Hedong District, Tianjin, has been sealed. Photo/Our reporter Liu Xiangnan
Proving It Is "Bloody" Stolen Money
Several interviewees recalled to China Newsweek that between 2021 and 2022, the Tianjin Public Security Bureau had conducted two rounds of compensation for victims with registered personal information, at rates of 5% and 8%. Zheng Zhengge said: "For those who invested millions, this is just a drop in the bucket."
In November 2021, Wu Xiaolong, general manager of Blue Sky Gerui, was tried, with his personal involvement amounting to 8.7 billion yuan, but his assets available for enforcement were only 9.56 million yuan, just one-thousandth of the amount to be recovered.
Meanwhile, across the ocean, the UK has issued a property freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act, and the 61,000 bitcoins frozen have soared in value to over 5 billion pounds due to the market boom. In September 2024, the UK Crown Prosecution Service officially launched civil recovery proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) and issued a "Victim Notification on the Blue Sky Gerui Fraud Case" to explain the recovery process.
Theoretically, according to POCA Section 281, the claims procedure leaves a narrow door open for "investors" seeking rights protection—they can apply to the UK Supreme Court to assert their legal claims to their property.
On October 15, 2025, the UK Crown Prosecution Service also proposed at a preliminary hearing that it was considering setting up a "compensation scheme" for Chinese victims not participating in the civil case, which is currently pending court review and approval. China Newsweek emailed the agency for details, but as of press time, had not received a valid response.
According to asset recovery statistics released by the UK government, the Home Office will share confiscated assets with the requesting country, usually at a 50% ratio. In cases involving victims, the UK may negotiate a different ratio.
Zhu Jiangnan, professor at the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Hong Kong, told China Newsweek that according to the China-UK Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty, when the confiscated assets are public funds and were embezzled or misappropriated from the requesting party, regardless of whether the funds have been laundered, the requested party should return the confiscated assets or the proceeds from their sale to the requesting party, after deducting reasonable realization costs. For economic fraud cases involving non-public funds like Qian Zhimin's, the treaty specifies applicable situations, but the actual return still depends on judicial procedures, evidence chains, court hearings, diplomatic negotiations, and consultations, with no clear unified ratio.
Once it is finally determined how much money belongs to the UK, the distribution of interests among different UK departments will also vary. Zhu Jiangnan said that the UK's Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme (ARIS) clearly stipulates a 50:50 split between the central government and law enforcement agencies to encourage further crime fighting. "In Qian Zhimin's case, the high enthusiasm shown by police and prosecutors is hard to separate from this incentive mechanism, besides professional spirit and performance considerations," Zhu Jiangnan analyzed.
The London Metropolitan Police, in response to China Newsweek's inquiry about asset disposal, also made it clear: police hope to see part of the recovered assets "flow to London and Londoners." For the UK police, who spent seven years investigating this case, it is undoubtedly seen as a way to recoup case-handling costs.
"In the face of huge interests, any institution can be a 'rational economic man.' The ARIS mechanism turns law enforcement into a business, and what we need to do is prove that this money is 'bloody' stolen money, not ownerless 'profit'," Yan Lixin told China Newsweek.
The misalignment of "the case being abroad, but the victims being at home" is the biggest difficulty in cross-border asset recovery. Multiple experts emphasize the need to demonstrate the principle and stance of "victim priority" in case negotiations. Yan Lixin said that according to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), returning assets to their legitimate owners is the top priority. "Only after all victims are compensated does the remainder (if any) become the subject of China-UK negotiations over asset sharing."
Zhao Binghao, director of the Institute of Fintech Law at China University of Political Science and Law, told China Newsweek that China can accept the UK deducting "reasonable law enforcement costs," but must prevent automatically falling into the default 50% or lower return ratio.
Previously, the UK Supreme Court emphasized that unless an individual or entity asserts a claim at the stage specified in POCA Section 281, there will be no intergovernmental contact. In other words, the UK will first determine asset ownership through its own judicial process before considering negotiations with China over asset return.
This approach has sparked controversy. Qian Zhimin's lawyer, Roger Sahota, stated: "The UK court's move means that any surplus from recovered assets may be retained by the state, effectively turning law enforcement into a potential new source of government revenue."
How Much Can Be Returned?
For the victims of this case, the most anticipated outcome is "full return." This model is not without precedent.
Zhu Jiangnan mentioned a milestone case in China's pursuit of fugitives and assets—the case of Li Huabo, former head of the Economic Construction Section of the Finance Bureau of Poyang County, Jiangxi Province. In 2015, although China and Singapore had not signed a bilateral judicial assistance treaty, the two sides cooperated, and the Singapore High Court enforced the Chinese court's confiscation order, returning all 20.4464 million yuan in stolen funds from the Li Huabo case to China. This was the first case in which Chinese prosecutors used the confiscation of illegal gains procedure to recover assets from corrupt fugitives abroad.
Yan Lixin suggested that a more feasible path is for the Chinese government or a designated asset manager to represent all victims and file a civil lawsuit in the UK court or act as a civil claimant attached to the criminal case. "This is not just a legal technical issue, but also a social governance issue. Government involvement can best appease domestic victims and demonstrate national will in international courts."
Shanghai Duan & Duan Law Firm is one of the firms representing Blue Sky Gerui investors in overseas cross-border loss recovery. Gu Zhaoqin, a lawyer at the firm's Hongqiao branch, told China Newsweek that the UK prosecution's civil recovery process is still in its early stages, with substantive evidence exchange yet to begin, so the whole process will be lengthy.
Previously, Yang Yuhua, a partner at Junzhe Law Firm in the UK, wrote that more than a thousand Chinese investors have tried to assert their rights through this process, with some making "radical" claims: not only demanding repayment of principal, but also seeking the appreciation of bitcoin over the past seven years.
Yan Lixin believes that if Chinese victims claim compensation based on the appreciated value, UK judges may question "unjust enrichment." "However, the 'tracing principle' in anti-money laundering tells us: if a victim's money was used to buy a lottery ticket that won, the victim has the right to claim the prize, not just the ticket's cost."
Zhao Binghao also agrees with this logic. He said that civil recovery focuses on whether the property itself is a representation of illegal gains. In principle, as long as the victim can prove that the money they were defrauded of grew into virtual currency along the chain, they have the right to claim compensation at current value. But whether the amount can be fully realized depends on whether the on-chain funds can be fully traced, how different victims are allocated, and the court's acceptance of the evidence chain.
However, Yu Jianing, co-chairman of the Blockchain Committee of the China Communications Industry Association, expressed the opposite view to China Newsweek. He believes that the huge appreciation of 61,000 bitcoins over seven years is a typical capital gain, originating from the market rise of bitcoin. If victims are allowed to claim rights based on the current value of bitcoin, it is equivalent to recognizing their entitlement to investment gains from the appreciation of virtual currency in an inherently illegal fund structure. "This not only conflicts with the negative evaluation of illegal fundraising in criminal law, but also creates a perverse incentive—'success means high returns, failure means being a victim.'"
He pointed out that, referring to precedents such as the PlusToken case, Chinese courts have uniformly recognized the entire value of virtual currency, including appreciation, as illegal gains, not calculated based on cost or purchase price. For this appreciation far exceeding the principal, "it is more appropriate to regard it as a public surplus value." China should, through diplomatic and judicial channels, claim this huge premium as an inseparable part of the criminal asset package, recover it, and include it in the national treasury. After returning the principal to victims, the remaining huge funds become public fiscal resources.
Technical Identification Challenges
In addition, technical evidence identification is an even more thorny issue.
Yu Jianing said that for an ordinary investor, it is almost technically impossible to accurately trace their original RMB "investment" all the way to the 61,000 bitcoins seized by UK police today. The reason is that this path crosses three fundamentally disconnected systems: first, the RMB-based bank account and cash collection system; second, the OTC market for currency exchange, highly dependent on personal networks and WeChat groups; third, the on-chain fund flow deliberately obfuscated by cold wallets, multi-layer transfers, and mixers.
From 2014 to 2017, when Qian Zhimin systematically converted investor funds into crypto assets, Yu Jianing sees it as a typical era of OTC currency exchange, centralized buying, highly mixed funds, and the use of mixers. Once funds entered the big pool, their individual traceability was lost. On-chain analysis can only reconstruct "this pool is dirty," not "which drop belongs to whom." "Once funds reached the ground promoters or the pool, they entered a huge black box, and from an individual perspective, it is impossible to see which money bought which coin."
More complicated, many investors in the Blue Sky Gerui case participated in multiple rolling investment projects. A lawyer deeply involved in the case told China Newsweek that in this case, principal, profits, and reinvestment are mixed, with different products having different cashback methods—some rolled over in cash, others reinvested via physical assets like "Duote Coin"—so the account amount does not match the actual loss. "At present, neither China nor the UK has the professional capacity to fully and credibly reconstruct all fund flows, bitcoin conversion processes, and corresponding ownership relationships."
Facing extremely high legal thresholds and recovery costs, Zheng Zhengge finally chose a third-party agency facilitated by a multinational company to assist in rights protection. Although the agency's promised compensation commission could be as high as 20%, he just hopes to recover his principal as soon as possible. "As for the appreciation, I dare not hope for it."
In addition, Zhao Binghao pointed out that some international judicial institutions may use contradictions in China's current regulatory and judicial practices to question the Chinese side. "In regulation, bitcoin issuance and financing are illegal. But in case handling, (we) treat virtual currency as property, which is an awkward situation."
In response, Yu Jianing believes that although China denies the monetary attribute of bitcoin, the Civil Code clearly protects its rights as "network virtual property." This precisely provides a solid property rights basis for cross-border asset recovery.
Yan Lixin offered a sharper "pragmatic, penetrating" analogy: "Our 'internal ban' is to prevent financial risks, while 'external recovery' is to uphold judicial justice. These are not contradictory, just like closing the door to clean the house does not mean others can pick up what is left at the door."
"This case is not only about asset recovery, but also an opportunity. It forces China to shift virtual currency regulation from 'only emphasizing risk and prohibition' to 'risk prevention, rules, and international alignment' in refined governance. Only in this way can China have enough voice and institutional confidence in future cross-border asset recovery and sharing games," said Zhao Binghao.
(Names Zheng Zhengge and Ge Qiu in the article are pseudonyms)
