Virtual Money Robbery Case: New Challenges in Judicial Practice

In recent years, with the development of blockchain technology, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tether have gradually become known. Although these digital assets are represented as code and data, they possess distinct property attributes due to their inherent value, transferability, and exclusivity. In China, although relevant regulations prohibit the use and speculation of virtual money as legal tender, judicial practice has commonly regarded them as "specific virtual goods" or "data-type property."

In the field of criminal justice, cases involving Virtual Money have been increasing year by year, mainly focusing on types such as fraud, theft, and computer crimes. However, cases of robbery directly obtaining Virtual Money through violence or coercion are relatively rare. A Bitcoin robbery case that occurred in Yichun, Jiangxi in 2021 ((2022) Gan 09 Criminal Final No. 9) has become a typical case in judicial practice due to its particularity and complexity, providing important reference for the qualification and sentencing of crypto assets in criminal cases.

Case Overview: An Attempted Bitcoin Robbery Plan

In May 2021, Lai, who suffered losses from trading coins, learned that Teacher Peng owned at least 5 bitcoins (which were priced at about 255,000 yuan at the time) and developed the idea of robbery. He posted online looking for accomplices and contacted a certain individual who agreed to participate. After meeting in Yichun, the two developed a detailed robbery plan and prepared to gather at least 4 people to commit the crime.

However, before the accomplices arrived, the police arrested the two on May 11 based on clues, and the criminal plan was not implemented. The first-instance court sentenced Lai to three years and Xiang to one year in prison for robbery. The second-instance court believed that the case was in the preparatory stage of robbery, did not cause actual losses, and did not make a reasonable determination of the value of Bitcoin. Therefore, it changed Lai's sentence to one year and six months and Xiang's to nine months in prison.

Legal Qualification of Robbery of Bitcoin

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

Robbery refers to the act of seizing public and private property through means of violence, coercion, or other methods. Although Bitcoin is essentially a string of encrypted data, it possesses characteristics of exchangeability, transferability, and real market value, aligning with the features of "broadly defined property." The appellate court cited relevant regulations and determined that Bitcoin is a type of "data property" that should be legally protected. Therefore, robbing Bitcoin is essentially no different from traditional robbery of cash or mobile phones, as it similarly infringes on the property interests of others.

In this case, although the crime was not carried out, the defendant had already made preparations for robbery and formulated a detailed plan, constituting an attempted robbery. The court, based on relevant judicial interpretations, ultimately determined that his actions constituted robbery but imposed a lighter penalty.

Sentencing Considerations for Crimes Involving Virtual Money

In crimes involving Virtual Money, a key factor in sentencing is how to determine the "property value". The first-instance court based its judgment on the market price of Bitcoin at the time of the incident, considering it to be of "particularly large amount" and imposed a heavy sentence. However, the second-instance court believed that since the case had not entered the implementation stage and there is a lack of clear pricing standards for Bitcoin in the country, it is not appropriate to use this as the basis for increasing the penalty.

The second-instance court proposed that the valuation of virtual money and other crypto assets should follow the principle of "loss compensation", mainly considering the following factors:

1. The victim's purchase price (given priority)
2. The real-time price of foreign trading platforms at the time of the incident
3. Selling Price (if any)

At the same time, the court emphasized that although our country does not recognize Bitcoin's status as currency, it does not prohibit private ownership and transfer. Therefore, the legitimate ownership of virtual money by victims should be protected by law.

Ultimately, the second-instance court comprehensively considered the harmfulness, means, and real risks during the preparatory stage of the robbery, and issued relatively lenient sentences for the two defendants, reflecting the rational and prudent attitude of the judicial authorities in handling new types of property crime cases.

Conclusion: Future Prospects for Legal Protection of Crypto Assets

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

Under the current legal framework, although cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin do not possess monetary attributes, their significant property value has been recognized. Any illegal appropriation of such assets, regardless of the method, will be considered a property crime.

With the in-depth development of the digital economy, criminal cases involving crypto assets will show a trend of diversification, and judicial authorities will face more new challenges. In the future, the law should further clarify the legal attributes of Virtual Money, market valuation standards, and the boundaries between data and property, establishing more unified and stable judicial ruling rules. At the same time, legal professionals also need to continuously enhance their expertise in the crypto field to better serve their clients.

It is foreseeable that crypto assets will gain increasing legal recognition and protection, and any actions that infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of their holders will be severely punished by law.