The Legal Dilemma of Virtual Money: Reflections Triggered by a Bitcoin Robbery Case

In recent years, with the vigorous development of blockchain technology, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tether have gradually entered the public eye. Although these digital assets are represented as code and data, they essentially possess property attributes due to their value, transferability, and exclusivity. In China, although relevant regulations clearly prohibit the use and speculation of virtual money as legal tender, they are generally regarded in judicial practice as "specific virtual goods" or "data-type property."

In the field of criminal justice, cases involving Virtual Money are on the rise, mainly focused on types such as fraud, theft, and computer crimes. However, robbery cases that directly obtain Virtual Money through violence or coercion are relatively rare. Therefore, a Bitcoin robbery case that occurred in Yichun, Jiangxi in 2021 attracted widespread attention and became a typical case for studying how to qualify and sentence crypto assets in criminal cases.

Case Review: A Foiled Bitcoin Robbery Plan

In May 2021, due to losses from trading coins, a person named Lai learned that Teacher Peng held at least 5 Bitcoins (which were priced at around 255,000 yuan at the time) and developed the idea of robbery. He posted information online to find accomplices, and a person named Mou responded immediately. The two met in Yichun and checked into a hotel, where they formulated a detailed robbery plan.

Lai prepared nylon ties and other tools, and continued to contact other potential accomplices. However, the police acted quickly based on the clues and arrested the two on the afternoon of May 11, effectively terminating the criminal plan before it could be implemented.

The first-instance court determined that the two individuals constituted robbery and sentenced Lai to three years and Xiang to one year of imprisonment, along with fines. After the two appealed, the second-instance court considered that the case was in the preparatory stage of robbery, which did not result in actual financial loss, nor was there a reasonable assessment of the value of Bitcoin. Therefore, Lai's sentence was changed to one year and six months, and Xiang's to nine months, significantly reducing the prison terms.

Legal Dispute: Does Robbing Bitcoin Constitute the Crime of Robbery?

The core dispute of this case is: does robbing Bitcoin meet the definition of robbery in criminal law? The effective judgment of the court provides an affirmative answer.

Robbery refers to the act of seizing public and private property through violence, coercion, and other means. Although Bitcoin is essentially a string of encrypted data, it possesses interchangeability, transferability, and real market value, meeting the three characteristics of "broadly defined property": manageability, transferability, and value.

The second-instance court cited a notice from relevant departments, classifying Bitcoin as "a specific type of virtual commodity". Although it does not possess the status of currency, it is considered a "data property" that should be legally protected. Therefore, robbing Bitcoin is essentially no different from traditional robbery of cash or physical goods, as it similarly infringes on the property rights of others.

Although Lai and others failed to actually carry out the robbery, the court ruled that their actions constituted the preparation for the crime of robbery since they had prepared tools and developed a detailed plan. According to relevant judicial interpretations, the court ultimately determined that their actions constituted the crime of robbery, but imposed a lighter penalty.

Sentencing Dilemma: How to Determine the Property Value of Virtual Money Crimes?

In cases of robbery involving virtual money, the key to sentencing lies in how to determine the "amount of robbery." The first-instance court based its decision on the market price of Bitcoin at the time of the incident (approximately 255,000 yuan/coin), deeming it to be of "especially large amount," and imposed a heavier sentence. However, the second-instance court presented a different viewpoint:

1. The case has not entered the implementation stage and no property has been actually obtained.
2. Bitcoin has no legal trading market in the country, and the price determination lacks clear standards.
3. The conviction for robbery should be based on the actual amount obtained, as it is difficult to accurately define the value during the planning stage.

The second-instance court pointed out that the value assessment of virtual money and other encrypted assets should follow the "loss compensation" principle, focusing on the actual losses of the victim as the core basis, and mainly referencing the following factors:

1. Purchase Price of the Victim (Priority Applicable)
2. Price of the trading platform at the time of the incident
3. Selling Price (if any)

The court also emphasized that although our country does not recognize Bitcoin's status as currency, it does not prohibit private ownership and transfer. Therefore, the victims' legal ownership of virtual assets should be protected by law.

Ultimately, the second-instance court decided not to impose a harsher penalty for robbery on the grounds of "large amount," but instead comprehensively considered the harmfulness, means, and actual risks during the preparatory stage of the robbery, making a relatively lenient judgment for the two defendants, reflecting the rational and cautious attitude of the judicial authorities in handling cases of new types of property crimes.

Conclusion: Future Prospects for Legal Protection of Crypto Assets

The ruling in this case not only provides a reference for cases involving robbery of virtual money but also clearly conveys a message: the property nature of virtual money has been widely recognized in the practice of Chinese criminal law.

Under the current legal framework, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin do not possess currency attributes, but they indeed have significant property value. Regardless of the method used to infringe upon such assets, as long as the perpetrator intends to illegally possess them, it will be treated as a property crime.

With the in-depth development of the digital economy, criminal cases involving crypto assets will become more diverse, and judicial authorities will face more new challenges. In the future, laws should further clarify the legal attributes of Virtual Money, market valuation standards, and the boundaries between data and property, establishing more unified and stable judicial ruling rules. At the same time, relevant legal practitioners also need to continuously improve their professional abilities to better address legal issues in this field.

It is foreseeable that crypto assets will gradually gain more legal recognition and protection, and any actions that infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of their holders will also be subject to severe scrutiny. This is not only beneficial for protecting the rights and interests of investors but will also provide strong legal support for the healthy development of the digital economy.