Virtual Money Robbery Case: New Challenges in Judicial Practice

In recent years, with the development of blockchain technology, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tether have gradually entered the public eye. Although these digital assets manifest as code and data, their intrinsic value, transferability, and exclusivity endow them with property attributes. In China, although relevant policies prohibit virtual money from circulating as legal tender and explicitly forbid speculation, judicial practice has commonly recognized their status as "specific virtual goods" or "data property."

In criminal cases, crimes involving Virtual Money are on the rise, primarily concentrated in the areas of fraud, theft, and computer crime. However, cases of directly robbing Virtual Money through violent means are not common. A Bitcoin robbery case that occurred in Yichun, Jiangxi in 2021 ((2022) Gan 09 Criminal Final 9) has become a typical case in judicial practice due to its particularity and complexity, providing important references for the classification and sentencing of crypto assets in criminal cases.

Case Overview: An Unsuccessful Bitcoin Robbery Plan

In May 2021, Lai, who had suffered losses from trading coins, learned that Peng had at least 5 bitcoins (which were priced at around 255,000 RMB at the time) and developed the idea of robbery. He posted information online to find accomplices, and Xiang actively contacted him and agreed to participate. After meeting in Yichun, the two devised a detailed robbery plan and prepared to recruit at least 4 people to commit the crime.

Lai planned to lure Peng to a remote area under the pretext of investment, where accomplices would control Peng and his companions to demand their Bitcoin account and password. To this end, they even prepared nylon ties as tools for the crime. However, while waiting for other accomplices to arrive, the police arrested the two based on a tip-off, and the criminal plan was aborted before it could be carried out.

The first-instance court sentenced Lai to three years and Xiang to one year in prison for robbery. The second-instance court determined that the case was at the preparatory stage of robbery, which did not result in actual property loss and made no reasonable assessment of the value of Bitcoin. Ultimately, the sentence for Lai was changed to one year and six months, and for Xiang to nine months in prison.

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

The core dispute in this case is: does robbing Bitcoin meet the constitutive elements of robbery as stipulated in the Criminal Law? The effective judgment of the court provided an affirmative answer.

Although Bitcoin is essentially a string of encrypted data, it possesses interchangeability, transferability, and real market value, aligning with the three characteristics of "general property" management possibility, transfer possibility, and value. The appellate court cited regulations from relevant departments in 2013, determining that Bitcoin is a "specific virtual commodity". While it does not have the status of currency, it is considered a "data property" that should be protected by law.

Therefore, robbing Bitcoin is fundamentally no different from traditional robbery of cash or physical goods, as the target of the infringement remains the property interests of others. In this case, although Lai and others did not actually attempt to carry out the robbery, their preparation of tools and formulation of a detailed plan constituted an attempt to commit robbery. The court ultimately determined that they constituted attempted robbery but imposed a reduced penalty.

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

In criminal cases involving Virtual Money, a key difficulty in sentencing is how to accurately assess the value. In this case, the first-instance court based its judgment on the market price of Bitcoin at the time of the incident, determining it to be "particularly large in amount" and imposing a heavier sentence. However, the second-instance court held a different view, believing that:

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 stolen, as it is difficult to accurately define the value during the planning stage.

The second-instance court pointed out that the valuation of encrypted assets should follow the "loss compensation" principle, with the victim's actual losses as the core basis, primarily referencing the following factors:

• Purchase price of the victim (priority applies)
• Price of the trading platform at the time of the incident
• Selling price (if any)

At the same time, the court emphasized that although our country does not recognize the currency status of Bitcoin, it has not prohibited private holding and transfer. The legal ownership of virtual assets by victims should be protected by law.

In the end, the second-instance court did not adopt the "huge amount" aggravating punishment, but rather comprehensively considered the harmfulness, means, and real risks during the preparatory stage of the robbery, rendering a relatively lenient judgment for the two defendants, reflecting the rational and prudent attitude of the judicial authorities in handling new types of property crime cases.

Conclusion: Future Perspectives on Legal Protection of Crypto Assets

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

Under the current legal framework, although cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin do not have monetary properties, their property value is protected by law. Whether through fraud, theft, illegal control of computer systems, extortion, or violent robbery, as long as the perpetrator commits harmful acts with the intent of illegal possession, they will be treated as property crimes.

With the in-depth development of the digital economy, criminal cases involving crypto assets will become more complex and diverse, and the challenges faced by judicial authorities will also increase. In the future, the law 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, practicing lawyers also need to continuously improve their professional abilities and deeply study the relevant knowledge in the crypto field to better serve their clients.

It is foreseeable that cryptocurrency assets will gradually gain more legal recognition and protection, and any actions infringing upon the legal rights of their holders will also be severely prosecuted according to the law.