Beijing High Court Typical Case Interpretation: How Live Streaming Revenue and Digital Collectibles Are Enforced

Original Authors: Xu Qian and Jin Weilin

Recently, a typical enforcement case reported by the Beijing Higher People’s Court has attracted widespread attention. The case clearly includes live streaming income, digital collectibles, and other online virtual assets within the scope of enforceable property. This judicial practice provides an innovative approach to solving the “difficulty in enforcement” problem.

Case Overview: From “No Property to Enforce” to Successfully Seizing 200,000 Yuan in Live Streaming Income

After a contract dispute case involving an industrial company and Wang was brought into enforcement proceedings, the court checked the control system and found that Wang had no real estate, vehicles, bank deposits, or other traditional assets available for enforcement. The case was temporarily concluded at that point.

Later, the applicant for enforcement discovered a lead: Wang has been engaged in diamond sales and live commerce activities on a certain streaming platform, with a fixed account and earnings. This lead was submitted to the Beijing Court’s “Enforcement Property Clue Transfer Center” and quickly transferred to the Fengtai District People’s Court in Beijing.

After verification, the court issued a “Notice of Assistance in Enforcement” to the platform operator, legally freezing and deducting about 200,000 yuan of Wang’s live streaming income from his account. After the funds were transferred, both parties reached a settlement agreement to offset the remaining debt with future live streaming commissions in installments. The successful handling of this case provides a practical example for similar new types of property enforcement cases.

Case Analysis: Standards for Recognizing Virtual Property and Enforcement Basis

Online virtual property possesses both “virtuality” and “property nature” attributes: the former determines its mode of existence and enforcement path, while the latter provides the legal basis for it to be considered responsible property.

1. Virtuality

Unlike traditional property, virtual property in the network has three core elements:

• No physical entity: It is not a tangible object in the physical world but exists as a virtual entity in cyberspace, essentially stored as electromagnetic records on specific servers.
• Dependent on space: Its existence depends on cyberspace; its creation, use, and transactions cannot be separated from the internet. Once disconnected from the platform, it loses its basis for existence.
• Unstable economic value: Its economic value is often recognized only within specific groups. For example, equipment in a particular online game has property value for players of that game but may have no value for others who do not engage with the game.

Legal basis:

Article 127 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China states: “Where the law provides for the protection of data and online virtual property, such provisions shall apply.” This clause explicitly affirms the legal protection status of data and online virtual property in civil law.

2. Property Attributes

Although virtual, online virtual property has the three core features of property:

• Value: It has objective economic value or market transaction price.
• Disposability: It can be possessed, used, and disposed of by the rights holder.
• Realizability: It can be converted into cash through transactions, auctions, etc.

Therefore, virtual property with these attributes qualifies as responsible property, and courts can enforce measures against it accordingly.

Scope of Enforcement: Which Virtual Properties Might Be “Enforced”?

Judicial practice is continuously expanding the types of virtual property subject to enforcement:

1. Digital assets: such as digital collectibles (NFTs), etc.

2. Accounts and virtual items: high-value social media accounts (e.g., TikTok, WeChat public accounts); virtual gifts from live streams; high-level game accounts and rare equipment; valuable domain names.

3. Income rights and operational rights: platform store operation rights; membership rights with property attributes, etc.

4. Data assets: legally owned databases and customer information assets with commercial value.

The criteria are as previously mentioned: whether they have clear property value, can be effectively controlled, and can be legally appraised and realized.

Extended Cases: Exploring Diverse Enforcement Methods

Based on the above property attributes, besides the case mentioned at the beginning, judicial practice has explored various effective enforcement paths:

1. Direct auction and realization

The People’s Court of Linshui County, Sichuan Province, auctioned a top-tier game account of an enforcer on a judicial auction platform, which sold for 213,000 yuan, successfully realizing the asset. 【(2025) Sichuan 1623 Enforcement 961】

2. Debt offset with assets

In a labor dispute case between Zhou and Zhuzhou Trading Co., Ltd., after negotiation, the enforcement applicant agreed to accept the enforcement of the company’s live streaming account to settle the entire debt. After transferring account rights, the case was closed.

Practical Operation Guide: From Clues to Funds

For creditors and lawyers, the following strategies can be adopted:

Step 1: Clue discovery—investigate whether the enforcer is involved in:

Don’t just focus on traditional assets like real estate or cars. The debtor might be hiding wealth on their phone. Key areas to investigate include:

• Live streaming/short video: Is the person a streamer or active content creator on any platform? Have they withdrawn earnings from live streams?
• Gaming: Are they a heavy gamer? Do they own high-level, well-equipped game accounts that can be sold at a good price?
• Digital collectibles: Are they following trends and holding NFTs, digital art, etc.?
• E-commerce/self-media: Do they operate Taobao shops, Xianyu accounts, WeChat public accounts, TikTok accounts, etc., that generate income?

Step 2: Target identification—submit “precise clues” to the court

Finding clues is just the beginning; submitting them to the court is crucial.

• Organize clues: Systematically compile the clues you’ve found, clearly noting platform names, account IDs, and suspected asset types (e.g., live income, shop deposits).
• Official submission: Prepare written documents and formally submit them through the court’s “Property Clue Transfer Center” or other official channels.
• In-depth investigation (advanced): If more detailed information is needed (such as account transaction records, linked phone numbers), apply for a lawyer investigation order to retrieve data from relevant platforms—much more effective than self-investigation.

Step 3: Tailored enforcement application based on “property”

Different types of virtual property require different enforcement approaches. When submitting applications to the court, be specific:

• Account with balance (e.g., live income, wallet balance): Request freezing and deduction directly.
• Valuable virtual items (e.g., game equipment, unwithdrawn copyright income): Apply for court seizure and compel delivery.
• Marketable assets: Request court appraisal by professional agencies, then conduct online judicial auctions for realization to satisfy debts.
• Most difficult accounts (e.g., self-media accounts, shops): Not only “seal” but also request to change real-name verification info! Only by transferring account ownership to the creditor or buyer can rights be fully transferred, ensuring enforcement effectiveness.

Step 4: Platform cooperation—clarify legal obligations

Court judgments require platform cooperation to be truly effective. We need to promote proactive actions from courts:

• Issue notices to platforms: Request courts to promptly send “Assistance in Enforcement” notices to relevant platforms (e.g., TikTok, Tencent, Alibaba Auctions), requiring them to perform legal duties such as inquiry, freezing, deduction, and transfer.
• Overcome difficulties: For live accounts and self-media accounts requiring ownership change, explicitly request platform assistance in completing “real-name verification” and “linked phone number” updates. This is critical; otherwise, even if accounts are frozen, the enforcer might recover them through appeals, causing enforcement failure.
• Legal basis: Don’t worry about platform non-cooperation. Supreme Court Guiding Case No. 267 provides clear legal rules for such operations. With court documents and this precedent, platforms are obliged to cooperate in ownership transfer, ensuring enforcement results.

Summary:

From discovering clues to final funds recovery, the process is clear: Find person and property → Submit to court → Classify and apply → Platform cooperation.

Each step requires strategy and patience, but with proper methods, virtual assets can also become an effective means for creditors to realize their rights.

Conclusion

The Beijing High Court case sends a clear and important signal: virtual property is no longer just a string of code on a screen but is protected by law as “real assets.”

• For courts, it breaks traditional property boundaries, expanding control scope into the digital realm, opening new paths for creditors to realize rights.
• For lawyers, it is a professional upgrade—only by understanding the rules of live streaming, gaming, and digital collectibles can they truly assist clients in the digital economy era.
• For the public, it is both a “reassurance” and a “warning”: your digital wealth will be protected by law, but trying to hide assets on your phone to evade debts is no longer feasible.

The normalization of virtual property enforcement is an inevitable step forward in judicial progress. It extends legal reach into the digital world and ensures that the value of every digital labor has a solid legal backing.