"Stealing coins", "scamming coins", "robbing coins", it's difficult to file a case! Finally, the lawyer successfully filed a criminal case on behalf of the client!

1. There are already many bad guys eyeing your virtual money, ready to "take you down"!

In practice, many victims have had their virtual money stolen by hackers, had their wallet mnemonic or exchange password stolen by people around them, or even had their virtual money cheated by scammers. They have also been threatened and extorted to give up their coins, or had their transaction funds forcibly taken during offline transactions. These situations make it difficult for people who own virtual money to defend themselves. Moreover, according to Lawyer Liu's understanding, the number of such cases is increasing! This also indicates that the 'bad guys' are conducting more and more research on virtual money. So, when victims encounter such situations, can they seek legal protection and report the cases to the public security organs? Additionally, can the public security organs 'bring these bad guys to justice' and ultimately help the victims 'recover their losses'?
二、Because it involves "Virtual Money", can the public security not file a case and ignore your experience?

The People's Bank of China has issued three documents on virtual currencies, namely the "Notice on Preventing Bitcoin Risks" (13-year notice), the "Announcement on Preventing Risks of Token Issuance Financing" (94 announcement), and the "Notice on Regulating Virtual Currency Mining Activities" (924 notice). The main purpose of these three documents is to advise the public not to engage in cryptocurrency speculation. Therefore, in the impression of the general public, those who play with virtual currencies are engaged in activities that are not encouraged or supported by the country. If the country does not encourage or support them, can the public security authorities refuse to file a case based on the "three documents" as a reason?
First of all, whether it is the notice in 2013, Announcement 94, or Notice 924, they all have the legal status of "normative documents" and do not belong to "laws, administrative regulations, or judicial interpretations" in terms of hierarchy of legal effect. Therefore, none of the above three documents can be directly cited as legal basis for public security organs to handle criminal cases under criminal law, let alone refuse to file criminal cases related to virtual currency based on these "three documents" as a reason.
Secondly, whether a virtual currency case constitutes fraud, theft, embezzlement, and other property crimes depends on whether virtual money can be considered as "property" in a legal sense. From the content of three documents, as early as the 13th year notice, the virtual commodity nature of Bitcoin has been recognized. One of the outstanding cases issued by the Supreme People's Court in 2020, Yan Xiangdong, et al. v. Li Shengyan, et al., Property Damage Compensation Dispute Case [(2019) Hu 01 Min Zhong 13689], also affirmed the property nature of virtual money, considering that virtual currencies such as Bitcoin have characteristics of value, scarcity, and disposability, possessing the characteristics of objects of rights. Moreover, in the case of [(2024) Hu 0104 Xing Chu 11], the court considered that the defendant, for the purpose of illegal possession, used technical means to intrude into others' computer information systems, secretly stealing others' virtual currency, and sentenced the defendant for theft. Through the above cases, it can be seen that virtual currency not only has property attributes in a legal sense, but can also be included in the category of criminal objects in property crimes under criminal law.
In addition, in terms of consequences, since virtual money can generate certain economic benefits, if the criminal law does not actively protect the property value of this kind, then this is equivalent to the "public security organs" supporting and protecting the acts of "stealing coins", "fraudulent coins", and "grabbing coins" by means of "not filing a case". Once this phenomenon becomes an industrial chain, it will obviously greatly undermine social justice and violate the simple emotions of the people.
So, the public security organs cannot use the 'three documents' related to the People's Bank of China and virtual currency as a reason for not filing a criminal case. In practice, we suggest that the investigating authorities evaluate the case comprehensively based on the actual situation. If the case does indeed infringe upon the interests protected by criminal law, then even if the case involves virtual currency, the investigating authorities should promptly file a case to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the victims.

#SCDO