When the P2P illicit funds from ten years ago turned into 60,000 bitcoins

Author: Henry, Overseas Compliance Notes

On June 5, the High Court of England held a procedural hearing regarding the asset disposal in the Qian Zhimin case, with 16,000 Chinese victims registering for claims through an international law firm alliance. This case, known as the largest Bitcoin money laundering case in the UK, originates from the illegal public deposit case involving Tianjin Lantian Ge Rui Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.

Qian Zhimin Case

From 2014 to 2017, the main perpetrator Qian Zhimin launched ten P2P financial products branded as "Lantian No. 1," "Lantian No. 2," and "You Li You Bi," claiming "zero risk, high returns" under the name of Lantian Ge Rui. Through promotional meetings and a multi-level marketing approach, she attracted public investment with high interest rates. Over approximately four years, she raised more than 40 billion yuan, affecting nearly 130,000 people.

In July 2017, Qian Zhimin illegally crossed into Myanmar from China, traveling through Thailand, Laos, and Malaysia, eventually escaping to the UK. She was arrested in April 2024 and sentenced to 11 years and 8 months in November 2025.

So, where did all the illicit funds go?

The answer is: Bitcoin.

Since 2014, Qian Zhimin has continuously used the illicit funds to purchase Bitcoin on "Huobi," acquiring a total of 194,951 Bitcoins at an average purchase price of 2,815 yuan per coin (according to her defense lawyer's statistics). By the time of her sentencing, the price of Bitcoin had inflated 266 times to 750,000 yuan per coin.

When British police arrested Qian Zhimin, her computer contained 61,000 Bitcoins.

The next challenge is determining the nature of so many Bitcoins. How should they be disposed of? Who has the right to participate in the distribution? This has become an unprecedented issue in the history of judicial cooperation between China and the UK.

16,000 Chinese Victims

Currently, about 16,000 Chinese victims have entered the civil recovery process under the UK Proceeds of Crime Act. Compared to the nearly 130,000 victims in the Lantian Ge Rui case, the number of those entering the UK process is still less than 13%.

These investors are not fighting individually but have gradually formed several recovery alliances composed of both UK and Chinese law firms.

The largest representative is the UK boutique law firm Candey, which collaborates with Chinese firms including Yingke, Duan & Duan (Beijing), and Mankun; the UK large comprehensive firm Fieldfisher, designated by the court as the lead law firm, primarily works with Jiren Law Firm; the international law firm Eversheds Sutherland collaborates with Jingshi (Shenzhen) Law Firm. Additionally, teams like Debenhams Ottaway and Duan & Duan UK also represent hundreds of victims.

This is a rare model of cross-border collaboration.

Chinese law firms are responsible for communicating with victims, collecting evidence, and organizing materials, while UK law firms handle court appearances, submit legal opinions, and advance litigation procedures.

Discussing Legal Fees First

One of the core issues discussed in the High Court hearing on June 5 was not how to distribute the assets but how to bear the legal fees. Given that the UK court is facing thousands of victims asserting their rights simultaneously, it is necessary to first resolve the legal issues that all applicants face collectively before gradually addressing individual loss assessments and asset distribution.

To avoid different legal teams duplicating resource investments, the court had previously designated Fieldfisher as the lead law firm, responsible for advancing a key issue on behalf of all individual victims—the issue of applicable law. The court clarified that the costs incurred for this work would be considered common expenses and should be borne collectively by the beneficiary group.

According to information disclosed during the hearing, as of the end of April, Fieldfisher had incurred approximately £190,000 in costs related to this common legal issue. This amount does not represent the total work cost but is calculated after deducting the workload corresponding to its own clients.

The ensuing controversy is: should this cost be shared by the number of victims or by the amount of each claim?

Some lawyers believe that if the loss amounts represented by different teams vary significantly, sharing the costs equally by number may not be fair; while others argue that calculating by amount would significantly increase statistical and accounting costs.

Ultimately, the judge adopted a compromise solution.

Each law firm will pay a corresponding share to the court account based on the proportion of victims they represent, with a deadline of June 26 at 4 PM. This fund will not be directly paid to Fieldfisher but will be temporarily held by the court until a responsibility-sharing mechanism is clarified.

It is worth noting that currently, some large representative teams have litigation financing institutions involved, so this initial cost is expected to be mainly borne by the financing party.

Deciding Asset Ownership

What truly determines the direction of the case is the legal applicability hearing scheduled for July. The core question is: should the UK court apply Chinese law or UK law?

However, this choice may directly determine how much compensation the victims can ultimately receive. According to Chinese judicial practice, participants in illegal fundraising are usually recognized as having a creditor-debtor relationship with the platform. Investors have the right to request the return of funds from the platform, rather than ownership of a specific asset.

If the court adopts this perspective, even if the Bitcoins involved have significantly appreciated in value over the past few years, the scope of claims that victims can assert may still primarily revolve around the original losses.

UK law may provide another pathway. The common law in the UK has long developed a "tracing" system. If it can be proven that an asset has a continuous connection to the misappropriated funds, even if the form of the asset has changed, the rights of the original rights holder may extend to the new asset.

This is the most closely watched part of the case. Because when the Lantian Ge Rui case broke out in 2017, the price of Bitcoin was far lower than it is today. After years of increase, the asset scale corresponding to 60,000 Bitcoins has reached tens of billions of dollars.

Domestic Liquidation and UK Procedures Running Concurrently

Meanwhile, the domestic liquidation process is also underway.

Tianjin has previously initiated the registration and verification work for the liquidation of the Lantian Ge Rui case. According to relevant announcements, due to the wide geographical scope of the case and the large number of participants, some investors have not yet completed registration confirmation, so the verification deadline has been extended to January 2026. The final verification results will become an important basis for the subsequent return of funds.

However, several lawyers involved in the case have pointed out that the domestic liquidation process and the UK civil recovery process are independent of each other.

Even if investors have reported cases, registered, or participated in liquidation domestically, if they wish to participate in the distribution of assets in the UK, they still need to assert their rights according to the requirements of the UK court.

The P2P scam from ten years ago has left countless families with nothing. Now, the main perpetrator Qian Zhimin has finally been brought to justice after years of hiding. How victims will legally recover their losses and obtain compensation will become an unprecedented legal challenge and a major case in the history of judicial cooperation between China and the UK. The subsequent developments are worth keeping an eye on.