Virtual Money Robbery Case: A Typical Example of Legal Protection for Encryption Assets

In recent years, with the development of blockchain technology, cryptocurrency has gradually become the focus of people's attention. Although these digital assets are represented as code and data, their value, transferability, and exclusivity give them the essential characteristics of property. In China, although relevant policies prohibit the use of virtual money as legal tender or speculation, judicial practice has generally recognized its status as "specific virtual goods" or "data property."

In the field of criminal justice, cases involving Virtual Money crimes are on the rise, primarily focusing on types such as fraud, theft, and computer crimes. However, robbery cases that directly obtain Virtual Money through violence or threats are not common. Therefore, a Bitcoin robbery case that occurred in Yichun, Jiangxi in 2021 attracted widespread attention, becoming a typical case in judicial practice and providing important references for the qualification and sentencing of encryption assets in criminal cases.

Case Overview: An Attempted Bitcoin Robbery Plan

In May 2021, a man named Lai, who suffered losses from trading coins, learned that a teacher held at least 5 bitcoins (then priced at about 255,000 yuan). He conceived the idea of robbery. He recruited accomplices online and a certain individual responded to join. After meeting in Yichun, the two devised a detailed robbery plan, preparing to control the target and demand their bitcoin account and password.

To carry out the robbery, Lai even prepared nylon ties and continued to contact other potential accomplices. However, the police intervened in time based on the clues and arrested the two on the afternoon of May 11, before the criminal plan could be put into action.

The first-instance court found that the two individuals constituted robbery and sentenced Lai to three years and Xiang to one year of imprisonment. However, the second-instance court deemed that the case belonged to the preparatory stage of robbery, did not result in actual property loss, and did not make a reasonable determination of the value of Virtual Money, thus changing Lai's sentence to one year and six months and Xiang's to nine months, significantly reducing their sentences.

Does robbing Bitcoin constitute robbery?

One core dispute in this case is: does robbing Bitcoin constitute robbery under the Criminal Law? The effective judgment of the court provides an affirmative answer.

Although Bitcoin is essentially a string of encryption data, it possesses characteristics of "general property" due to its interchangeability, transferability, and real market value: manageability, transferability, and value. The appellate court cited relevant policy documents and recognized Bitcoin as a "specific virtual commodity," which belongs to the "data property" that should be protected by law.

The court believes that the act of robbing Bitcoin still infringes on the property interests of others, and is fundamentally no different from traditional robbery of cash or physical goods. Although the criminals in this case did not actually attempt to carry out the robbery, their actions constitute criminal preparation and meet the elements of the crime of robbery.

Sentencing Considerations for Crimes Involving Virtual Money

In robbery cases involving Virtual Money, determining the "amount of robbery" has become a key difficulty in sentencing. The second-instance court proposed the following considerations:

1. Purchase price of the victim: to be prioritized as it best reflects the actual loss.
2. Price of the trading platform at the time of the incident: If there is no purchase record, you can refer to the real-time price on foreign platforms at the time of the infringement.
3. Selling price: If available, it can serve as an auxiliary reference.

The court emphasized that although our country does not recognize the currency status of Bitcoin, it has not prohibited individuals from holding and transferring it. Therefore, the victim's legal possession of virtual money should be protected by law.

In this case, the second-instance court did not impose a heavier penalty for "huge amounts", but instead comprehensively considered the harmfulness, means, and real risks of the preparatory stage of robbery, making a relatively lighter judgment, reflecting the rational and prudent attitude of judicial authorities in handling new types of property crime cases.

Conclusion: Future Prospects of Legal Protection for Encryption Assets

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

Under the current legal framework, although cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin do not possess the attributes of money, their property value has been recognized. Regardless of the means used to infringe upon such assets, as long as the perpetrator has the intention of illegal possession, it will be treated as property crime.

With the deepening development of the digital economy, criminal cases involving encryption assets may become more complex and diverse. Future legal systems need to further clarify the legal attributes of Virtual Money, market valuation standards, and the boundaries between data and property, in order to establish more unified and stable judicial judgment rules. At the same time, relevant legal practitioners also need to continuously enhance their professional knowledge to better cope with the challenges of this emerging field.

It is foreseeable that encryption assets will increasingly gain legal recognition and protection, and any actions that infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of their holders will also be subject to severe legal sanctions.