According to Foresight News , the Justice.cn website, supervised by the Supreme People's Procuratorate and sponsored by the Procuratorial Daily, published an article yesterday titled "Establishing Multiple Judicial Pathways for Criminal Cases Involving Virtual Currency." The article points out that improving the judicial pathways for criminal cases involving virtual currency should include the following four points:
First, clarify the legal status and role of third-party institutions. Future legislation could include third-party institutions in the category of judicial auction assistants, granting them exclusive qualifications for "one-off, targeted, and non-public bidding."
Second, a dual system of technical standards and procedural norms should be established. To ensure the compliance and transparency of the disposal process, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, together with financial regulatory authorities, should jointly issue dual technical and procedural standards. Regarding technical standards, the qualification requirements for bidding platforms should be clearly defined, including blockchain technology capabilities and data security guarantees. Regarding procedural standards, price assessment methods should be standardized, using the average price of the 20 days prior to the transaction date or the victim's acquisition cost as a benchmark, unifying the on-chain evidence storage format, and ensuring that proceeds are directly transferred to a special fiscal account to prevent funds from flowing back into cryptocurrency speculation channels.
Third, strengthen the seamless connection between prosecutorial supervision and rights protection. The procuratorate can require third-party institutions to submit regular progress reports, including on-chain tracking records, bidding processes, and fund transfer vouchers. Simultaneously, a rights notification and objection mechanism can be established to ensure that involved parties and bona fide third parties can promptly understand the handling process and raise objections. For objections, expert consultation or independent review can be organized to ensure the fairness of the handling outcome.
Fourth, explore differentiated disposal models. Differentiated disposal measures include realization, destruction, and return. For cases involving the return of victims' property, a targeted auction-based realization model can be prioritized to ensure full refund of proceeds. For example, if victims have not yet redeemed stablecoins after being defrauded, and they wish to return the original currency, it can be directly returned, provided it complies with regulations, avoiding exchange rate losses. For cases involving the confiscation of contraband, destruction or technical sealing models can be used to prevent re-entry into the market. For example, for tokens specifically used for pyramid schemes or gambling, if liquidity is poor and market depth is insufficient, forced realization may lead to devaluation; therefore, they can be destroyed according to law, and the destruction record should be recorded in the judgment. For high-value currencies whose proceeds from crime have been mixed with legitimate investments, realization should be prioritized to maximize the recovery of losses. Furthermore, for cases involving smaller sums or those difficult to trace technically, simplified disposal procedures can be explored, such as a comprehensive assessment model. This involves determining the value and ownership of the virtual currency involved in the case based on relevant evidence when the circulation path cannot be fully traced.
