The Supreme People's Court has issued new regulations adding "disputes involving data and virtual property" as a new cause of action—a breakthrough is expected in adjudicating cryptocurrency (virtual currency) cases.

On December 16, 2025, the Supreme People's Court issued the newly revised "Provisions on Causes of Action in Civil Cases." In addition, the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Jurisdiction of Cases in Internet Courts" also officially came into effect on November 1, 2025. These two provisions complement each other, together forming a new framework for the judicial handling of disputes involving digital rights. This article will explore the profound impact of these two new regulations on the adjudication of cryptocurrency-related civil cases.

Author: Lawyer Shao Shiwei

New Regulations at a Glance: Clarifying Jurisdiction and Standardizing Case Filing

Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Jurisdiction of Cases in Internet Courts

The document clarifies that internet courts have centralized jurisdiction over first-instance cases involving "ownership, infringement, and contract disputes of online virtual property" within their respective municipal districts. This procedurally designates a specialized court to handle these cases.

Provisions on Causes of Action in Civil Cases

The first-level cause of action has been added: "Part Six: Disputes over Data and Virtual Property on the Internet." This provides independent and clear guidelines for filing cases related to data and virtual property on the internet.

Background: Responding to the judicial needs of the digital age

This revision is a proactive response from the judicial system to the rapid development of the digital economy. Attorney Shao believes that the judicial dilemmas in cryptocurrency-related disputes are an important practical driving force for improving the rules.

Although Article 127 of the Civil Code has made principled provisions for the protection of data and virtual property on the Internet, in specific judicial practice, cases involving cryptocurrencies have long faced the dual dilemma of "inconsistent nature of the case" and "inconsistent judgment standards".

On the one hand, cases are often reluctantly categorized into traditional causes such as "contract disputes" and "unjust enrichment," resulting in a lack of targeted adjudication. On the other hand, different courts have significant disagreements regarding the validity of contracts, the nature of property, and the determination of their value, impacting judicial credibility. The addition of this independent cause of action, and the explicit designation of centralized jurisdiction by internet courts, is precisely to systematically address these prominent issues. It aims to provide clear and unified litigation guidance and a professional adjudication path for emerging digital rights disputes, including those involving cryptocurrencies, ensuring scientific case classification and standardized adjudication.

The current state and core disputes in civil cases involving cryptocurrencies

While there is a consensus in the criminal field that mainstream cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Tether (USDT) are protected as "property" under criminal law, the civil field presents a more complex picture. Courts generally recognize their status as "virtual property," but at the same time strictly enforce regulatory policies prohibiting illegal financial activities related to virtual currencies, leading to multiple controversies and frequent instances of inconsistent judgments in similar cases.

Based on the cases our firm has handled in recent years, civil disputes involving cryptocurrencies are on the rise, mainly falling into the following categories:

• Investment disputes : This type of dispute is the most numerous. Typical disputes focus on issues such as the trustee failing to carry out investment operations as agreed, the failure to fulfill prior promises of principal and interest payments, and disputes over profit sharing after investment.

• Sales contract/over-the-counter (OTC) disputes : Common conflicts manifest as one party failing to receive the agreed cryptocurrency after paying in fiat currency, or one party refusing to pay after delivering cryptocurrency, as well as unilateral breach of contract caused by drastic fluctuations in cryptocurrency prices during the transaction process.
• Lending disputes : Lending disputes involving cryptocurrencies have increased significantly in recent years. Lenders typically demand that borrowers return the principal and interest in fiat currency or an equivalent amount in cryptocurrency, while borrowers often claim the contract is invalid due to policy violations and refuse to fulfill their repayment obligations.
• Ownership and tort disputes : These cases are often more complex. They mainly involve asset recovery after cryptocurrency wallets are stolen, private keys are lost or leaked, and disputes over the division and confirmation of rights to relevant cryptocurrency assets in cases of divorce, inheritance, etc.

It is clear from the above case types that cryptocurrency civil disputes are not simple legal issues, but rather complex controversies intertwined with policy background, transaction details, and the fault of the parties involved. On the surface, they appear to be disputes over contracts, loans, and torts, but in essence, they all revolve around the same fundamental question:

Under the current regulatory framework, the question remains: can such civil acts be protected by the judiciary, and to what extent? It is precisely on this premise that different courts have adopted drastically different adjudicative approaches, leading to a series of disagreements regarding contract validity, loss apportionment, property disposal, and even civil and criminal evaluation standards.

• The core issue in the contract validity debate lies in whether to apply a blanket invalidity policy or differentiate between different cases. According to Article 153 of the Civil Code, contracts involving investment transactions are often deemed invalid because they "violate public order and good morals" (financial order). However, for simple non-speculative civil acts such as loans and repayments, different courts apply different standards. ( Related reading : Court Opinion: Transferring virtual currency to another party is an illegal debt! Once borrowed, don't expect it back! — Lawyer's advice: How to get your money back? )

• Disputes over loss sharing : The principle is "risk borne by the investor," but there are key exceptions. If one party is clearly at fault, such as through fraud, misleading investment, promising guaranteed returns, or failing to fulfill its obligations, the court will, in accordance with Article 157 of the Civil Code, determine its liability based on the degree of fault. ( Related reading : Are overseas virtual currency investments not protected by Chinese law? Lawyer Shao Shiwei explains → )

• Disputes over asset disposal : This is the root cause of enforcement difficulties. After a contract is invalidated, judgments ordering the "return of virtual currency" are often considered "unenforceable" in practice due to the special nature of the subject matter and its large price fluctuations; while judgments ordering compensation at a discounted price lack universally recognized and legal valuation standards.
• The fundamental contradiction in judicial logic lies in the duality of "civil denial" and "criminal protection." In civil cases, the transactional value of an asset is denied, while in criminal cases, its property value is explicitly recognized. This tension urgently needs to be reconciled in judicial practice.

How to overcome the difficulties in adjudicating civil cases involving virtual currencies? New regulations offer a professional approach.

The coordinated implementation of the two new regulations aims to systematically resolve the aforementioned disputes and promote the standardization of adjudication.

1. Specialized Jurisdiction: Cases are centrally adjudicated by the Internet Court, ensuring uniform standards of judgment.

Solving the "Where to Sue" Problem : The new "Jurisdiction Regulations" centralize disputes involving virtual property in internet courts. This means that in the future, the vast majority of cryptocurrency civil cases will be handled by specialized courts familiar with internet technology, business logic, and electronic evidence rules.

Improving trial efficiency : The "online dispute online trial" model is naturally suited to the characteristics of electronic evidence and cross-regional nature of cryptocurrency disputes. It can greatly reduce the litigation costs for the parties, improve trial efficiency, and lay the foundation for unifying judgment standards and accumulating typological trial experience.

2. Establishing an independent cause of action: "Disputes involving data and virtual network property" has been established as an independent cause of action, clarifying the basis for adjudication.

Addressing the question of "what cases to file" : The newly added first-level cause of action formally confirms the independent status of such disputes from the top-level design of judicial statistics and case management. This makes it clear to litigants and courts when filing cases, eliminating the need to "force" other causes of action and ensuring the targeted nature of the trial from the outset.

However, it is important to note that the new regulations primarily address issues related to litigation procedures and the trial framework; they do not and will not change the country's strict financial regulatory policies. Cases involving Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and illegal financial activities related to cryptocurrencies will still be handled in accordance with relevant laws.

Conclusion

Overall, the two new regulations represent an important step by the judicial system to actively respond to the needs of digital economic development and improve national governance capabilities. For cryptocurrency holders and related practitioners, this sends a positive signal that the judiciary will handle related property disputes in a more standardized and professional manner.

Based on our practical experience, we remind everyone to carefully preserve crucial electronic evidence in your daily activities, such as wallet addresses, private keys, transaction hash records, and contract communication records . In case of disputes, you can seek legal remedies from a court with competent jurisdiction.

Disclaimer: As a blockchain information platform, the articles published on this site represent only the personal views of the authors and guests and do not reflect the position of Web3Caff. The information contained in the articles is for reference only and does not constitute any investment advice or offer. Please comply with the relevant laws and regulations of your country or region.