On January 25, a UK court convened the first civil recovery hearing of the year in the money laundering case involving Qian Zhimin and 60,000 bitcoins. Although the criminal proceedings in the UK have largely concluded, the disposition of the crypto assets involved continues to advance through multiple legal channels.
At present, the civil recovery process led by UK prosecutors, rights claims brought by Chinese victims, and related bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings are running in parallel. These tracks intersect and constrain one another to varying degrees, adding significant procedural complexity to the case.
Procedural Hearing Centers on the Issue of “Representation”
This hearing was procedural in nature, with the court making no determinations on asset ownership, compensation schemes, or other substantive legal issues. The central focus was a critical question: who should represent the large number of Chinese victims in the subsequent civil recovery proceedings.
Judge Turner, who is presiding over the case, expressed repeated concerns during the hearing. As an increasing number of law firms seek to represent different groups of Chinese victims, the UK High Court faces a real risk of “over-representation.” Without a unified or coordinated mechanism, future proceedings could be significantly delayed by overlapping claims and conflicting positions.
Impact of Parallel Tracks on the Direction of the Case
The current situation reflects a typical complexity in cross-border crypto asset litigation. On one hand, civil recovery proceedings aim to control and dispose of the assets without relying on criminal convictions. On the other hand, victims seek lawful avenues to assert their rights, while the involvement of bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings may materially affect both the order of distribution and the scope of assets available.
The court has scheduled a further hearing for February 16–17, at which it may provide clearer arrangements or guidance on how the bankruptcy process should interact with the ongoing civil recovery case.
On-Chain Facts as a Foundation for Procedural Progress
In cases of this nature, the traceability of on-chain assets is a fundamental prerequisite for the validity of all parties’ claims. The origin, transaction history, and current status of the bitcoins involved directly affect the recoverable scope, the pool of distributable assets, and the priority among competing legal proceedings.
As the case moves into deeper procedural coordination, continuous and structured analysis of on-chain data is becoming one of the key tools supporting judicial decision-making and cross-border cooperation.
Implications for Cross-Border Crypto Judicial Practice
This case highlights that when crypto asset disputes involve large numbers of victims and complex jurisdictional overlaps, procedural design itself often becomes a decisive factor in balancing efficiency and fairness. How courts safeguard victims’ rights while preventing procedural disorder is a shared challenge across jurisdictions.
In practice, on-chain risk and fund flow analysis capabilities—such as those provided by Trustformer KYT—are increasingly used to support the understanding of asset relationships and historical behaviors, offering courts a clearer factual backdrop. As similar cases continue to emerge, coordination between procedural governance and on-chain facts may become a central theme in cross-border crypto judicial practice.