Bitcoin Robbery Case: A New Chapter in the Legal Protection of Virtual Assets

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, their inherent value, transferability, and exclusivity endow them with property attributes. In China, although relevant regulations clearly prohibit the circulation of virtual currencies as legal tender and also prohibit speculative activities, judicial practice has widely recognized virtual currencies as "specific virtual goods" or "data-type property."

In the field of criminal justice, the number of criminal cases involving virtual currencies has been increasing year by year, mainly focusing on types such as fraud, theft, and computer crimes. However, cases of "robbery" that directly use violence or coercion to obtain virtual currencies are not common. Thus, a Bitcoin robbery case that occurred in Yichun, Jiangxi in 2021 (Case No. (2022) Gan 09 Criminal Final 9) has become a typical example in judicial practice due to its particularity and complexity, providing important references for the qualification and sentencing of crypto assets in criminal cases.

Case Review: A Failed Bitcoin Robbery Plan

In May 2021, a man named Lai, having suffered losses from trading coins, learned that Teacher Peng possessed at least 5 Bitcoins (then priced at about 255,000 yuan). This led him to develop the idea of robbery. He posted information online to find accomplices and contacted a man named Xiang, who joined the plan. The two met in Yichun and devised a detailed robbery scheme, preparing to recruit at least 4 people to carry out the crime.

Lai planned to invite Teacher Peng to a remote area under the pretext of investment, with one person responsible for pick-up and drop-off, while the other three used nylon ties to control Teacher Peng and his companions, demanding the Bitcoin account and password. To this end, Lai even prepared 7 nylon ties and continued to contact other potential accomplices.

However, the police acted quickly based on the clues and arrested the two individuals on the spot on the afternoon of May 11, before the criminal plan had begun to be implemented. The first-instance court determined that the two constituted robbery, sentencing Lai to three years and Xiang to one year in prison, along with fines. After the two appealed, the second-instance court found that the case belonged to the preparatory stage of robbery, which did not cause actual property damage and did not make a reasonable determination 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 their prison terms.

The Legal Basis for Robbery of Bitcoin Constituting the Crime of Robbery

A key point of contention in this case is: does the robbery of Bitcoin constitute "robbery" in the criminal law sense? The court's effective judgment provides an affirmative answer.

Robbery in criminal law refers to the act of seizing public or private property through means of violence, coercion, etc. Although Bitcoin is essentially a string of encrypted data, it possesses interchangeability, transferability, and real market value, which align with the three main characteristics of "broadly defined property": manageability, transferability, and value.

The second-instance court cited a notice from relevant departments in 2013, determining that Bitcoin is a "specific virtual commodity." Although it does not possess the status of currency, it falls under the category of "data property" that should be legally protected. Therefore, robbing Bitcoin does not lose the elements of property crime due to its data form; the object of infringement remains the property interests of others, which is essentially no different from traditional robbery of cash or mobile phones.

In this case, although Lai and others did not start to implement the robbery, their actions already constitute criminal preparation, as the two defendants had prepared tools for the crime and formulated detailed plans, which constitutes an attempted robbery. In conjunction with relevant judicial interpretations, the court ultimately found that their actions constituted robbery, but imposed a lighter penalty.

Sentencing Rules for Crimes Involving Virtual Currency: Determining the Value of Property is Key

In cases of robbery involving virtual currency, in addition to considering the method of conduct, it is also necessary to determine the "amount of the robbery," which is one of the difficulties in judicial practice.

The first-instance court based its judgment on the market price of Bitcoin at the time of the incident (approximately 255,000 yuan/coin), believing that the two intended to rob at least one coin, which constituted a "particularly large amount" and thus imposed a heavier sentence. However, the second-instance court held a different view: first, the case had not entered the "execution stage" and no property had been actually obtained; second, Bitcoin has no legal trading market in the country, and the price determination lacks clear standards; finally, the conviction of robbery should be based on the "actual amount obtained," and the value cannot be accurately defined in the premeditation stage.

The second-instance court pointed out that the value of crypto assets should follow the "loss compensation" principle, focusing primarily on the actual losses of the victim, and mainly considering the following factors:

1. Purchase price of the victim: priority applies, which can most accurately reflect their losses.
2. Price of the trading platform at the time of the incident: If there is no purchase record, you can refer to the instantaneous price on foreign platforms at the time of the infringement.
3. Resale price: If available, it can also serve as an auxiliary reference.

At the same time, the court emphasized that although our country does not recognize the monetary status of Bitcoin, it has not prohibited private ownership and transfer. Therefore, the victim's ownership of virtual assets is legal, and their losses should be protected by law.

Ultimately, the appellate court decided not to impose a heavier penalty for robbery due to "huge amounts," but rather, it made a relatively lenient judgment on the two defendants by considering the harmfulness, means, and actual risks during the preparatory stage of the robbery, reflecting the rational and cautious attitude of the judicial authorities in handling cases of new-type property crimes.

Conclusion: Future Prospects of Legal Protection for Crypto Assets

The judgment in this case not only provides guidance for cases involving virtual currency robbery but also sends a clear signal: the property nature of virtual currency has been widely recognized in the practice of Chinese criminal law.

Under the current legal framework, although cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin do not possess monetary attributes, they have significant property value. Whether through fraud, theft, illegal control of computer systems, extortion, or violent robbery, as long as the perpetrator engages in infringing behavior with the intent of illegal possession, it will be considered a property crime.

With the in-depth development of the digital economy, criminal cases involving crypto assets will become increasingly diversified, and judicial authorities will face more new types and new disputes. In the future, the law should further clarify the legal attributes of virtual currencies, market valuation standards, and the delineation of data and property boundaries, establishing more unified and stable judicial ruling rules. At the same time, relevant legal practitioners also need to continuously improve their professional capabilities and deepen their knowledge of the crypto field to better serve their clients.

It is foreseeable that crypto assets will increasingly gain legal recognition and protection, and any actions that infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of their holders will be severely pursued under the law. This not only benefits the protection of investors' rights but will also provide strong legal support for the healthy development of the digital economy.