The Justice Network published an article suggesting the exploration of three disposal measures for virtual currency involved in criminal cases: "monetization, destruction, and return."
The Justice Network published an article titled "Establishing Multiple Judicial Disposal Paths for Criminal Cases Involving Virtual Currency." The article proposes to improve the judicial disposal paths for virtual currency involved in criminal cases:First, clarify the legal status and role positioning of third-party institutions. Future legislation could include third-party institutions in the category of judicial auction assistants, granting them exclusive qualifications for "one-time, targeted, non-public bidding."Second, construct a dual system of technical standards and procedural norms. The Supreme Court and the Supreme Procuratorate, in conjunction with financial regulatory authorities, should jointly issue dual standards. Price assessment should use the average price of the 20 days prior to the transaction date or the victim's acquisition cost as a benchmark, unify the on-chain evidence storage format, and directly transfer the proceeds to a special fiscal account to eliminate the channels for fund backflow into cryptocurrency speculation.Third, strengthen the full-process connection of prosecutorial supervision and rights protection. The procuratorial organs should participate throughout the disposal process, requiring third-party institutions to submit regular progress reports on the disposal and establish a rights notification and objection mechanism.Fourth, explore differentiated disposal models. Different measures such as liquidation, destruction, and return should be applied. For cases involving the return of victims' property, a targeted bidding liquidation model should be prioritized to ensure that the proceeds are fully compensated. For stablecoins that have not yet been exchanged after the victim was defrauded, if they are willing to return the original currency, it can be directly returned under compliant conditions to avoid exchange rate losses. For cases involving the confiscation of prohibited items, destruction or technical sealing methods can be employed to prevent them from re-entering the market. For tokens specifically used for pyramid schemes or gambling, if they have poor liquidity and insufficient market depth, forced liquidation may lead to depreciation, and they can be legally destroyed with a record of destruction noted in the judgment documents. For criminal proceeds that have been mixed with legitimate investments in high-value currencies, liquidation should be prioritized to maximize loss recovery. Additionally, for cases involving smaller amounts or those with significant technical tracking difficulties, simplified disposal procedures can be explored, such as a comprehensive identification model, which determines the value and ownership of the virtual currency involved based on relevant evidence when the circulation path cannot be fully clarified.It is reported that the Justice Network is a comprehensive internet service platform sponsored by the People's Daily of the Supreme People's Procuratorate. The authors of this article are members of the Party Committee of the Third Branch of the Beijing People's Procuratorate, a first-level researcher, a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Law of Capital University of Economics and Business, and a research assistant at the Research Center for Integrity and Rule of Law at Capital University of Economics and Business.
