Virtual Money is Protected by Law as Property: Insights from a Bitcoin Robbery Case

Introduction

In recent years, with the development of blockchain technology, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ether, and Tether have gradually entered the public eye. Although these digital assets are represented as code and data, their value, transferability, and exclusivity give them property attributes. Despite China explicitly banning virtual money from circulating and being used as legal tender, as well as prohibiting speculation, in judicial practice, virtual money has been widely recognized as "specific virtual goods" or "data-type property."

In the field of criminal justice, there is an increasing trend in criminal cases involving virtual money, primarily focusing on types such as fraud, theft, and computer crimes. However, cases of "robbery" that directly use violence or coercion to obtain virtual money are relatively rare. Therefore, a Bitcoin robbery case that occurred in Yichun, Jiangxi in 2021 attracted widespread attention and became an important reference for studying the classification and sentencing of crypto assets in criminal cases.

I. Case Overview: A Failed Bitcoin Robbery Plan

In May 2021, a person named Lai, having suffered losses from trading coins, learned that another person named Peng held at least 5 Bitcoins (which were approximately 255,000 yuan each at the time) and developed the idea of robbing him. He recruited accomplices online, and a person named Xiang was invited to join. The two met in Yichun and checked into a hotel to formulate a detailed robbery plan.

They were preparing to gather at least four people to lure Peng under the pretext of "investment" to a remote area, using nylon ties to control the target and his companions, and demanding Bitcoin account and password. Lai even picked up seven nylon ties near the hotel and continued to contact other potential accomplices. However, the police arrested the two on the spot in the afternoon of May 11 based on tips, and the criminal plan was terminated before it could be implemented.

The first-instance court found that the two individuals constituted the crime of robbery, sentencing Lai to three years and Xiang to one year of imprisonment, along with fines. The second-instance court determined that the case was in the preparatory phase of robbery, amending Lai's sentence to one year and six months and Xiang's to nine months, resulting in a significantly reduced sentence.

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

The effective judgment of the court clearly states that robbing Bitcoin constitutes robbery in the sense of the Criminal Law. Although Bitcoin is essentially a string of encrypted data, it meets the three major characteristics of "broadly defined property": manageability, transferability, and value.

The second-instance court cited a notice from relevant departments in 2013, classifying Bitcoin as a "specific virtual commodity". Although it does not have the status of currency, it belongs to "data property" that should be protected by law. Therefore, robbing Bitcoin still infringes on the property interests of others, which is essentially no different from traditionally robbing cash or mobile phones.

In this case, although Lai and others did not actually commit robbery, their actions constituted criminal preparation. According to relevant legal provisions, the court ultimately determined that their actions constituted robbery, but imposed a reduced penalty.

III. Sentencing Rules for Crimes Involving Virtual Money

In the sentencing of crimes involving Virtual Money, the key lies in the determination of "property value". The second instance court pointed out that the value of encrypted assets should follow the "loss compensation" principle, mainly referring to the following factors:

1. Purchase price of the victim: preferentially applicable, most capable of truly reflecting their losses.
2. Transaction platform price 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. Resale Price: If available, it can serve as an auxiliary reference.

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

In the end, the second-instance court did not impose a heavier penalty for the robbery due to the "huge amount," but instead 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 prudent attitude of the judicial authorities in new types of property crime cases.

IV. Conclusion: Future Outlook on Legal Protection of Crypto Assets

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

Under the current legal framework, while cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin do not possess monetary attributes, they hold significant property value. Whether through fraud, theft, illegal control of computer systems, extortion, or violent robbery, as long as the perpetrator commits the act with the intent of illegal possession, it will be regarded as a property crime.

With the deepening development of the digital economy, criminal cases involving cryptocurrency assets will become increasingly diverse, and judicial authorities will face more new types and new disputes. In the future, laws should further clarify the legal attributes of Virtual Money, 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 enhance their professional knowledge to better address legal issues in this field.

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 according to the law.