$ 7 billion Bitcoin -Fraud test to start in London – what you need to know

The test of the alleged brain of a cross-border investment fraud of $ 7 billion will start in London on September 29, whereby the case is expected to set precedents for the way in which the authorities in the UK will deal with compensation for crypto-related financial crime.

The suspect is the Chinese National Zhimin Qian, the alleged organizer of a fraudulent investment scheme that has the victim of nearly 130,000 investors in China.

She would have exploited the Tianjin Lantian Electronic Technology Company, which between 2014 and 2017 sought customers for an investment product in Ponzi style that offered returns between 100% and 300%.

The scheme collapsed in 2017 after the general prohibition of China on cryptocurrency activities, in which Qian fled to the UK that same year and the proceeds of the scheme have laundered Bitcoin Now worth around $ 7 billion.

The British authorities were able to seize 61,000 BTC between 2018 and 2021, as part of anti-money laundering practices to Qian’s co-sammer Jian Wen, a one-off pick-up worker who was made suitable for money laundering in March 2024.

Qian is now confronted with her own process, but the complexity of the case can make it difficult for legal experts to secure a conviction.

“The cross -border nature makes the persecution of Qian a tough fight for British Justice officers,” said Yuhua Yang, a partner at Thornhill Legal, in London.

Note that the fraudulent activities took place in China, Yang explained Decrypt That no British companies or entities were involved in the alleged criminal activities and that no assets were passed by financial institutions in the UK.

“From the criminal perspective, the burden of proof is based on the prosecution for English procedures,” she said. “It can be a challenge for the British authorities to collect evidence from China, such as victim declarations, financial data and company documents from Lantian Gui, to prove that the Bitcoins are derived from fraudulent fundraising in China.”

Crypto-oriented matter

Because of this potential difficulty that the British Crown Prosecution Service Qian has not accused of fraud or money laundering, instead aimed at two related charges: the illegal possession and transfer of cryptocurrency and the acquisition, use and possession of criminal property.

And for other legal experts it is this focus that makes the case more manageable for British public prosecutors.

“The state chose not to prosecute for the fraud against hundreds of thousands of Chinese investors because that behavior took place in China and had no direct link with England and Wales,” said Ashley Fairbrother, a partner at EMM Legal.

Spend against DecryptFairbrother explained that, according to the established Anwar principles, the prosecution does not have to prove fraud, and that it would be sufficient to prove that the assets in question were obtained through criminal activities, “even if the precise infringement cannot be established.”

Although it would accept that it would be difficult to find direct evidence from China, Fairbrother noted that a British jury already convicted the Jian Wen from Qian for a similar offense, probably using almost the same evidence.

Fairbrother explained: “The law itself is not unprecedented here and is well equipped to tackle this situation; what is unprecedented is the enormous scale of the money involved – comparable to the annual GDP of some countries.”

The Bitcoin question of $ 7 billion

It is the large sum of Bitcoin – now worth around $ 7 billion – which makes the upcoming case interesting, according to Fairbrother, with civilian recovery procedures to determine how victims can be compensated.

“The Chinese investors will have to prove that they have a legitimate request for ownership of the funds,” he said. “Given the size and complexity of the fraud, that will be a considerable challenge.”

Given the amounts at stake and the possible problems, Fairbrother suggests that it is “very likely” that the civil case will eventually reach the UK Supreme Court.