Chinese court treats Bitcoin as property in 107 BTC memory theft case
Man in eastern China who stole 107 Bitcoin using a memorized seed phrase gets 10 years and nine months behind bars.
Man in eastern China who stole 107 Bitcoin using a memorized seed phrase gets 10 years and nine months behind bars. This report comes from CoinTelegr
Read Full Story at CoinTelegraph →Why This Matters
This ruling marks a pivotal shift in how Chinese courts treat cryptocurrency under the law, granting Bitcoin the legal status of property for the first time in a high-profile criminal case. It signals a cautious but deliberate recognition of digital assets by a system historically wary of decentralized finance, potentially paving the way for more crypto-related litigation to be adjudicated through existing property laws rather than outright prohibition.
Background Context
China’s longstanding hostility toward cryptocurrency—culminating in its 2021 blanket ban on trading and mining—has left a legal gray zone for disputes involving digital assets. While authorities have sporadically acknowledged Bitcoin’s existence as a tradable commodity in civil disputes, this case is the first to explicitly frame stolen crypto as property eligible for restitution under criminal law, setting a precedent amid ongoing crackdowns.
What Happens Next
Expect defendants in future crypto theft cases to cite this ruling in appeals, forcing higher courts to either affirm or refine the property classification. Meanwhile, exchanges and custodians may face renewed pressure to bolster safeguards for seed phrases, knowing courts now recognize their material value. The case could also embolden victims to pursue civil claims for lost crypto in jurisdictions outside China, testing the ruling’s extraterritorial influence.
Bigger Picture
The decision reflects a global trend of courts gradually adapting to the permanence of crypto assets, even in jurisdictions with restrictive crypto policies. It underscores how practical realities—like the irreversible nature of blockchain transactions—are forcing legal systems to evolve, regardless of ideological opposition to decentralized finance.
