Exorbitant "Maritime Seizure"! Hundreds of Bitcoins Recovered by Police in Two Regions, Hidden Clues Behind the Reversal of Charges

Recently, a bizarre case has sent shockwaves through the gray areas of law and cryptocurrency: a man from Shenzhen was investigated across provinces by police in Henan and Hunan for holding over a hundred bitcoins, with assets worth more than 80 million yuan seized. Even more astonishing, the initial charge of "running a casino" was overturned in the final prosecution, replaced by charges of "theft" and "infringement of citizens' personal information." After several twists and turns, the case was first heard in January 2026 at the People's Court of Changge City, Henan, with the verdict still pending, drawing widespread online attention.

All of this began with a cross-provincial judicial operation. The police in Zhangjiajie, Hunan, first launched an investigation into Shenzhen man Li#欧美关税风波冲击市场 on suspicion of "running a casino," and lawfully seized over 100 bitcoins from his account, with a cash equivalent exceeding 40 million yuan at the time. Almost simultaneously, the police in Changge, Henan, also filed charges against Li$BTC for the same crime, seizing another 80 bitcoins valued at over 40 million yuan. One person, the same digital assets, being seized in two different regions, revealing the complexity of jurisdiction and asset management.

However, the case took a dramatic turn. Further investigation showed that Li was ultimately not deemed to have "run a casino," and the People's Procuratorate of Changge, Henan, instead prosecuted him for suspected theft and infringement of citizens' personal information. In January 2026, the case was first publicly tried in Changge Court. During the trial, both prosecution and defense fiercely debated the legal nature of Bitcoin and the characterization of the involved conduct. The court ultimately announced a postponement of the trial, indicating that this case involving huge virtual assets and significant changes in charges remains full of legal and factual uncertainties.

The case has sparked public discussion not only because of the large amount involved but also because it touches on many ambiguous issues at the intersection of law and emerging digital assets. Although cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are not recognized as legal tender domestically, their property attributes have been acknowledged in some judicial practices. The fact that police in two regions intervened and charges shifted midway also reflects the ongoing challenges faced by law enforcement in investigating, defining, and coordinating across regions in cases involving new virtual assets.

Meanwhile, the case serves as a warning to digital currency holders. While China has not explicitly banned individuals from holding Bitcoin, its trading and circulation remain under strict regulation. When sources are unclear or suspected criminal links are involved, legal risks can easily arise. In this case, the individual’s large holdings of Bitcoin led to investigations by multiple police agencies. Regardless of the final verdict, assets have been frozen for a long time, and the case process was lengthy and complicated, illustrating that holding large amounts of cryptocurrency still involves significant compliance and security concerns under the current framework.

As the law has yet to fully cover every aspect of digital currencies, this case may become a landmark precedent influencing future similar cases. For ordinary holders, remaining cautious, ensuring the legality of asset sources, and avoiding gray-area transactions might be the most prudent approach. After all, when technology advances faster than regulations, self-protection remains the first line of defense.