The Dilemma of Value Determination in Criminal Cases Involving Virtual Money

In recent years, the number of criminal cases involving Virtual Money has been on the rise. In addition to common cases of money laundering, fraud, pyramid schemes, and gambling using Virtual Money, there has also been an increasing number of fraud and theft cases involving Virtual Money between individuals. These cases provide valuable references for handling criminal cases related to coins.

This article will explore the key issue of whether the virtual money involved in an investment dispute stemming from a virtual money fraud case can be priced.

Case Overview

Between June and July 2018, Zheng defrauded Wang of 32 coins and over 1000 coins in the Chaoyang District of Beijing under the pretense of helping Wang invest in a blockchain project. Zheng sold the obtained coins, making a profit of over 1.64 million yuan. Later, after being notified by the police, Zheng voluntarily surrendered.

After the court trial, it was determined that Zheng had fabricated facts to illegally possess others' property, with a particularly large amount involved, constituting the crime of fraud. Zheng was ultimately sentenced to ten years in prison and fined two hundred thousand yuan.

Key Issues: Valuation of the Involved Virtual Money

Determining the amount involved in cases of fraud related to Virtual Money or fundraising fraud is a tricky issue. In practice, judicial authorities have adopted various methods, such as the purchase price of the victim, the selling price of the suspect, the market price of foreign exchanges, or the evaluation price from third-party institutions.

However, the Chaoyang District Court of Beijing clearly pointed out in this case: "The value of virtual money is influenced by national laws and regulations as well as industry supervision policies, and it is not appropriate to directly determine it in individual cases." This viewpoint may become the most standard adjudication criterion currently. Ultimately, the court used the defendant Zheng's illicit proceeds of over 1.64 million yuan as the amount involved in the case.

The Contradiction between Virtual Money Policy and Judicial Practice

In September 2021, a regulatory policy document jointly issued by ten ministries and commissions of the state classified activities related to Virtual Money as "illegal financial activities," including providing pricing services for Virtual Money transactions. This policy has sparked controversy in judicial practice.

There is a viewpoint that the judicial authority's determination of the price of the involved virtual money is a judicial activity and is not subject to the restrictions of this policy. Another viewpoint holds that this policy's prohibition on activities related to virtual money is comprehensive, and no institution, including judicial authorities, should price virtual money.

The approach of the Chaoyang District Court in Beijing provides a solution to this contradiction: in principle, it does not actively determine the value of the involved Virtual Money, and gives priority to determining the amount involved through other means such as the amount of proceeds from selling stolen goods, purchase price, cash disposal amount, or judicial appraisal results.

Conclusion

The legal positioning and regulation of Virtual Money has always been a complex issue. The current regulatory policies are overly simplistic, making it difficult not only to effectively control Virtual Money but also to create numerous challenges for law enforcement and judicial activities. Addressing this issue may require revising existing policies to better adapt to the new challenges brought by Virtual Money.