Written by: Liu Zhengyao
Introduction
Imagine this scenario: One day, programmer Xiao Liu logs into his wallet and discovers that his Bitcoin has vanished—worth nearly a million RMB, secretly transferred by someone who cracked his private key. He immediately reports it to the police, who quickly identify the suspect.
But what happened next left Xiaolin utterly bewildered: a serious disagreement arose within the prosecutor's office regarding the appropriate charge against the suspect. Some argued for theft, while others insisted on "illegally obtaining data from a computer information system." The two charges could lead to vastly different verdicts.
This is not an isolated case. In recent years, as cryptocurrencies have become increasingly popular, similar legal disputes have been unfolding in courts across the country. For the same crime of "stealing cryptocurrency," some are severely punished, while others receive only minor sentences. Behind this lies a fundamental question that Chinese law has yet to fully resolve: What exactly is cryptocurrency?
How does coin theft happen?
Before discussing the legal issues, let's briefly understand how virtual currency is "stolen".
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are essentially stored on a blockchain network. You "own" them because you possess a key called a "private key." Whoever has this private key can access the corresponding cryptocurrency.
Therefore, stealing cryptocurrency is completely different from breaking into a house to steal cash or valuables. Hackers either use technical means to infiltrate your computer and wallet software to obtain your private key, or they forge websites and send phishing emails to trick you into handing over your private key.
Once the cryptocurrency is transferred, the record on the blockchain cannot be reversed. This characteristic is one of the reasons that later sparked legal disputes.
Two "Viewpoints" on Law
Under current Chinese law, handling such cases mainly involves two charges, which correspond to two completely different logics.
The first line of reasoning: Virtual currency is property, and stealing it is theft.
This logic sounds intuitive. Bitcoin can be used to buy things and exchange for money, with each coin costing hundreds of thousands of yuan; moreover, the generation of Bitcoin requires a large amount of electricity and other energy, so why shouldn't it be considered property? Courts holding this view usually convict people of theft or fraud, and if the amount involved is huge, the sentence is quite severe, with serious cases potentially resulting in sentences of more than ten years or even life imprisonment.
The second line of reasoning is that virtual currency is just data, and stealing it is "illegally obtaining data from a computer information system".
This logic stems from a technical perspective. Bitcoin, as a blockchain, is essentially a string of digital records. Hacking into a wallet and obtaining its private key meets the criteria for "illegally intruding into a computer information system." According to this logic, the maximum sentence is only 7 years, far less severe than theft.
The same issue, two sets of logic, two outcomes—this is what gives litigants and lawyers a headache. While more and more Chinese courts are beginning to recognize the property attributes of mainstream cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, nationwide uniformity is difficult to achieve. Some courts still consider cryptocurrencies merely data, not property. Furthermore, the distinction between so-called mainstream and non-mainstream currencies lacks a universally accepted standard within the legal community. Add to this the regulatory restrictions in mainland China, such as prohibitions on cryptocurrency trading and pricing services, and the elimination of this second set of logics won't be so easy.
Why are the courts' rulings different?
The answer lies in a fundamental contradiction: the legal definition of virtual currency in China is itself contradictory.
On the one hand, regulatory authorities such as the People's Bank of China have clearly stated that virtual currencies such as Bitcoin do not have the same legal status as legal tender and cannot circulate in the market as currency. Following the "9.24 Notice" in 2021, relevant departments further issued "Document No. 42" ("Notice on Further Preventing and Handling Risks Related to Virtual Currencies") in 2026, which comprehensively prohibits virtual currency-related businesses. From this perspective, virtual currencies are not considered "legal property" by the authorities.
Especially in handling civil disputes involving virtual currencies, contracts for lending, buying, selling, and investing in virtual currencies are all invalid, and the legal risks are borne by the parties themselves. While some courts currently recognize the value attributes of virtual currencies in civil judgments, they do not necessarily protect the holding and trading of virtual currencies.
On the other hand, in handling criminal cases involving currency, courts have repeatedly acknowledged that virtual currencies possess property attributes and can be confiscated. Furthermore, when they are subsequently turned over to the national treasury or returned to the victims, they can be converted into cash through judicial disposal of the virtual currency.
This creates a strange situation: virtual currency is considered property under criminal law, but may not be considered legally protected property under civil law. In different judicial proceedings, the same thing may be viewed with completely different conclusions by different courts.
How serious is this controversy?
Judging from publicly available cases in recent years, the judgments of similar cases vary considerably in different regions.
In some places, courts have ruled that although Bitcoin is not legal tender, it has real value, and its theft should be treated as theft, resulting in severe penalties. In other places, courts have held that since the state does not recognize virtual currency as legal property, it is not included in the criminal definition of "public or private property," and can only be prosecuted as a data-related crime.
What's even more confusing is that, even in the same type of case, courts at different levels sometimes overturn lower court rulings and change the direction of the conviction. This means that, for example, if you lose 1 million yuan in cryptocurrency, how your case will ultimately be judged largely depends on which city you're in and which judge you encounter.
This uncertainty poses a real risk for the growing number of ordinary people participating in cryptocurrency transactions.
What is the key difference between the two charges?
Simply put, the difference lies in the different objects of legal protection.
Theft protects property rights—if your belongings are taken, whether it's cash, gold, or a cell phone, the law will ensure you receive fair compensation and that the perpetrator is severely punished. The more valuable the property, the more serious the crime.
The crime of illegally obtaining data from a computer information system protects the security of that system—someone has broken into your computer system without authorization, compromising the integrity and confidentiality of the data. This crime doesn't focus on the "value" of the data, but rather on the act of intrusion itself.
When virtual currency is classified as "data," even if it is worth tens of millions, it may only be treated as a data-related crime, resulting in a significantly reduced sentence. This creates a clear imbalance between crime and punishment in practice: stealing things of the same value can lead to vastly different penalties because of the different "nature of the item."
The existence of this controversy stems fundamentally from the fact that China's current legal system was established before the widespread adoption of virtual currencies.
Crimes like theft and fraud were envisioned at the time of legislation to target tangible property or fiat currency in bank accounts. Private keys and tokens on the blockchain completely exceeded those initial expectations.
At the same time, the government has been tightening its regulation of virtual currencies, which has made the judiciary hesitant to recognize their "property attributes"—after all, if a court ruling explicitly defines Bitcoin as property protected by criminal law, it would be tantamount to tacitly recognizing its legal status.
This policy dilemma ultimately translates into specific judicial cases.
Conclusion
The question of "what crime should be charged with for stealing cryptocurrency" may seem technical, but it reflects a dilemma of our times: when the pace of new technology development far exceeds the pace of legal updates, existing rules will develop cracks.
Cryptocurrency is neither currency in the traditional sense nor data in the ordinary sense; it is a completely new entity. The legal definition of it ultimately requires a clear answer from the legislative level, rather than leaving each victim to gamble on "what the judge they encounter will think."
Being aware of the existence of this controversy before the answer arrives is itself a form of self-protection.
