Zhimin Qian, a Chinese national, is set to stand trial in London on September 29 in connection with a $7 billion crypto-related investment fraud. The case, one of the largest of its kind to reach UK courts, could establish new legal benchmarks for how Britain handles the seizure and potential compensation of cryptocurrency-linked criminal assets.
Qian is alleged to have operated Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology Company between 2014 and 2017, offering Chinese investors returns as high as 300% through what prosecutors describe as a Ponzi-style scheme. Nearly 130,000 people were reportedly defrauded before the scheme collapsed in 2017 following China’s sweeping ban on crypto activity. Qian then fled to the UK, having allegedly laundered the proceeds into Bitcoin.
Between 2018 and 2021, UK authorities seized over 61,000 BTC connected to Qian’s associate Jian Wen, who was convicted of money laundering in March 2024. Qian now faces her own charges in the UK, although notably not for fraud or money laundering. Instead, the Crown Prosecution Service has charged her with the unlawful possession and transfer of cryptocurrency, and acquisition, use, and possession of criminal property.
Legal experts say the absence of fraud charges is due to jurisdictional limitations. Since the fraud occurred in China and no UK companies or financial institutions were involved, collecting sufficient evidence—such as victim statements or Chinese financial records—poses a significant challenge for prosecutors.
According to Yuhua Yang, a partner at Thornhill Legal, the burden of proof rests with UK authorities, and sourcing evidence from China is likely to be difficult. However, others see the Crown’s strategy as pragmatic. Ashley Fairbrother, a partner at EMM Legal, explained that under the Anwar principles, the prosecution only needs to prove that the assets are linked to criminal conduct—even if the specific crime can’t be proven under UK law.
Fairbrother pointed out that much of the evidence used to convict Jian Wen could also apply to Qian’s case. What sets this trial apart, he said, is not the legal complexity, but the staggering volume of money involved—comparable to the GDP of a small country.
Civil recovery proceedings are running in parallel, aimed at determining whether Chinese victims have a legal claim to the seized assets. To reclaim the funds, investors must demonstrate a legitimate proprietary interest—an uphill legal battle that could take years to resolve.
Experts believe the civil proceedings are very likely to reach the UK Supreme Court, given both the international nature of the fraud and the billions in crypto assets now in government control. The case may not only shape how cross-border crypto crimes are prosecuted but also influence how victims are compensated in future high-value digital asset frauds.
