Qian Zhimin's 60,000 BTC recovery trial begins! Chinese victims' representatives flood in, causing chaos

Qian Zhimin Case: The UK High Court Hearing on January 21st, debated who should represent Chinese victims; the judge warned of “over-proxying.” On January 24th, the prosecution ordered co-conspirator Sen Hok Ling to pay 7.6 million USD within three months, or face an additional 8-year sentence. Ling transferred 83.7 BTC and was sentenced to 4 years. The seizure of 61,000 BTC is the largest in UK history; a continued hearing is scheduled for February 16-17.

January 21st Procedural Hearing Reveals Proxy Confusion

At the start of 2026, on January 21st, the UK High Court in Manchester held a hearing (Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Zhimin Qian and others, Case No. KB-2024-003157) regarding the civil forfeiture of Bitcoin related to Qian Zhimin. This was a typical procedural hearing, with no rulings on asset ownership, compensation plans, or substantive legal issues.

The core issue was who should represent the vast number of Chinese victims. Judge Turner repeatedly expressed concern over the current situation. As more law firms separately represent different groups of Chinese victims, the UK High Court faces the real risk of “proxy overload.” While common in large-scale transnational fraud cases, the complexity here has reached new heights.

The problem with “proxy overload” is that when dozens of law firms each represent thousands of victims, court proceedings become extremely chaotic. Each legal team may present different claims, demand different compensation schemes, and interpret evidence differently. This fragmentation not only delays proceedings but also risks conflicts of interest among victims, ultimately harming everyone’s rights.

Judge Turner’s concerns indicate that UK courts aim to establish a more unified victim representation mechanism. Possible solutions include appointing one or a few law firms as common representatives for all victims, creating a victims’ committee to coordinate interests, or having the court appoint independent victim representatives (similar to bankruptcy trustees).

Although the criminal proceedings in this case have concluded, the civil forfeiture by the UK authorities, the rights claims of Chinese victims, and the concurrent bankruptcy proceedings create a multi-track process that deeply influences the final form of justice. Such multi-track judicial procedures are common in international fraud cases but are highly complex.

Deterrent Effect of the 3-Month Payment Order for Sen Hok Ling

On January 24th, the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) ordered key intermediary in the Bitcoin fraud, known as “professional money launderer” Sen Hok Ling, to pay 5 million GBP (about 7.6 million USD) within three months, or face an additional maximum 8-year sentence.

CPS stated that Ling assisted convicted fraudster Zhimin Qian (also known as Yadi Zhang) in transferring funds. Between February and April 2024, Ling received 83.7 BTC and laundered the proceeds through UAE bank accounts and third-party channels. Ling pleaded guilty in November 2025 to money laundering charges and was sentenced to 4 years and 11 months. Zhimin Qian was sentenced to 11 years and 8 months for two money laundering charges.

The three-month payment order is highly deterrent. The $7.6 million amount far exceeds Ling’s direct gains from this laundering operation, indicating UK authorities aim to recover all illicit proceeds, not just those related to this case. If Ling fails to pay within the deadline, the additional 8-year sentence would extend his total imprisonment to nearly 13 years. This harsh penalty is designed to pressure Ling to disclose hidden assets or cooperate in investigating broader money laundering networks.

The 83.7 BTC, valued at roughly $5-6 million during Feb-Apr 2024 (depending on transaction timing), reveals the operation of transnational laundering networks. UAE’s relatively lax financial regulation and banking secrecy have long made it a hotspot for laundering funds. Ling’s case provides law enforcement with valuable intelligence for tracking such money flows.

Labeling Ling as a “professional money launderer” implies he is not an incidental participant but a career criminal specializing in laundering. Such individuals often serve multiple criminal groups, mastering complex laundering networks and techniques. Enforcement actions against Ling aim not only for justice in this case but also to disrupt the broader money laundering industry chain.

The Dilemma of Disposing of the UK’s Largest Seized Bitcoin Asset: 61,000 BTC

Furthermore, regarding the final disposition of the 61,000 BTC (the largest crypto asset seizure in UK history) under Zhimin Qian, civil proceedings are ongoing. Future plans may include using part of the funds for victim compensation, with the remainder possibly going to the UK Treasury. At current prices (~$90,000 per BTC), the total value is about $5.5 billion. This massive asset will set a legal precedent in asset disposal.

The UK prosecution’s civil forfeiture aims to lawfully confiscate and distribute these bitcoins. However, distribution faces multiple challenges. First, victim identification and verification: over 100,000 Chinese victims are said to have lost funds in the original scam, but verifying each victim’s loss amount and legitimacy is a huge task. The scam occurred in China, with evidence mainly in Chinese, requiring extensive translation and validation.

Second, the distribution ratio: should it be proportional to victims’ losses or evenly divided? The former is fairer but complex to calculate; the latter is simpler but may cause disputes. Also, whether to prioritize certain groups (e.g., elderly victims or those with particularly severe losses) is contentious.

Third, the UK Treasury’s claim: under UK law, criminal proceeds are to be used to compensate victims, with remaining funds going to the state. However, since the scam occurred in China and victims are Chinese citizens, and the UK is only the seizure and trial jurisdiction, questions arise whether the UK has the right to retain the remaining assets or should return them to the Chinese government—an intricate international legal issue.

Bankruptcy proceedings further complicate civil forfeiture. Judge Turner explicitly mentioned the UK bankruptcy process of Blue Sky Group. If the company enters bankruptcy, its assets will be managed by a bankruptcy trustee, potentially conflicting with civil forfeiture. The trustee’s duty is to distribute assets fairly among creditors, while civil proceedings aim to return assets to victims. The priority and distribution methods may conflict.

Future Directions of the February Hearing and Multi-Track Procedures

A subsequent hearing is scheduled for February 16-17, which may further address the impact of bankruptcy proceedings on civil forfeiture or provide guidance. This hearing’s importance exceeds procedural formality; it could determine the case’s fundamental framework and future trajectory.

Key issues include: how to coordinate numerous victim representatives; jurisdictional division between bankruptcy and civil forfeiture; principles and timelines for asset distribution; and the scope of Chinese victims’ rights within UK law. These technical procedural questions directly affect whether and how victims can be compensated, and how much and when.

In 2025, the main perpetrator Zhimin Qian was convicted of money laundering in the UK. Over 100,000 Chinese victims still await restitution. Although progress in 2026 is slow and filled with technical discussions, each step influences the final outcome. For victims, it’s a long wait, but the rigorous UK legal process may ultimately deliver justice.

From a broader perspective, the Zhimin Qian case provides a significant example for international cryptocurrency crime enforcement. How to coordinate criminal, civil, and bankruptcy proceedings across borders; how to identify and verify large victim groups; how to dispose of seized crypto assets—solutions to these issues will inform future similar cases.