In August 2025, near an oil field in Northeast China, two men were brought to the criminal trial bench due to a seemingly "high-tech" electricity theft operation. Zhang and Zhao illegally tapped into the high-voltage power lines of the oil field, secretly diverting electricity from a state-owned energy company to an abandoned pig slaughterhouse and a derelict pig pen, continuously powering 36 Bitcoin mining machines. The hidden location, the roaring machines day and night, and the electricity that didn't appear on any bills constituted the entire stage for this "underground computing power project." In the first instance of the case, Zhang was sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined 50,000 yuan, while Zhao received a sentence of 4 years and 10 months in prison and was fined 20,000 yuan. This stark contrast in sentences reflects China's ongoing harsh judicial stance against electricity theft for mining, especially acts that encroach upon important energy facilities.
Abandoned Slaughterhouse Transforms into Mining Site: The Underground Passage of Oil Field Electricity
In this case, the choice of location was the first and most crucial step of the entire illegal mining scheme. Zhang and Zhao did not dump their equipment into ordinary factories or residential areas, but instead focused on the already defunct pig slaughterhouse and the idle pig pens nearby. Such locations see little foot traffic and the constant noise from day and night machines goes unnoticed, while the long-term "abandoned" appearance makes nearby residents accustomed to it. The 36 Bitcoin mining machines were set up in these abandoned spaces, where the dense electronic equipment and the continuously operating cooling systems were almost imperceptible from outside.
The real risks and the essence of the crime lay in the way electricity was accessed outside the mining site. The two did not go through any compliant electricity usage procedures but instead directly tapped into the high-voltage lines from the nearby oil field, secretly bringing electricity into one side of the slaughterhouse and supplying power to the mining machines through makeshift wiring. This not only encroached upon the economic interests of the electricity company but also posed a blatant challenge to the safety of state strategic energy facilities like oil fields: illegal connections to high-voltage lines carry extremely high risks of electric shock and fire, and may also disrupt the stability of the local power grid, potentially leading to larger-scale safety incidents in extreme cases. Because the target was not ordinary industrial electricity but that of the oil field, some media pointed out that this was the first publicly disclosed criminal case of using oil field electricity for Bitcoin mining, marking an upgrade in the illegal acts rather than just another "electricity theft mining" case.
Severe Sentences Implemented: Judicial Qualitative Analysis of Electricity Theft Mining
In the first-instance judgment, the court's sentencing for the two defendants significantly reshaped the boundary of what onlookers may perceive as "electricity payment disputes." According to publicly available information, Zhang was sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined 50,000 yuan; Zhao was sentenced to 4 years and 10 months in prison, with a fine of 20,000 yuan. The notable disparity in sentences between the two often signifies differences in the roles they played within the case, the specific actions taken, the level of organization and planning, and their attitudes toward confession. Regardless of the differences, both crossed the threshold of several years of imprisonment, and were not just subjected to administrative fines or cost recovery penalties.
To understand the range of sentencing, one must return to the basic logic of criminal law: electricity theft is judicially treated as theft, and not a simple civil debt issue. What is being stolen is not just a string of numbers on a meter, but protected property rights and even public resources. More importantly, the target of the theft in this case was not ordinary residential or general industrial electricity but the power carried by the high-voltage lines of the oil field. Oil fields are viewed as state strategic energy facilities, and their power systems are related to production safety and energy supply. Any illegal connection during high-voltage steps does not just constitute “stealing a bit of electricity” but poses a threat to the safety of the power grid and the operation of critical infrastructure.
From this judicial perspective, electricity theft mining and mere electricity bill defaults have a fundamental difference. The former can be classified as a theft of considerable amounts with serious circumstances, or even as behavior that jeopardizes public safety. Adding to it, using energy-intensive Bitcoin mining activities exacerbates the social harm of the actions. The encroachment on oil field electricity and the jeopardization of power grid safety compelled the court to lean toward a ten-year sentence, which is close to a "severe penalty," signaling a "zero tolerance" approach to similar behaviors.
Three Years After the Cleanup Wave: Illegal Mining Shifts from Industrial Parks to Oil Fields
This case that occurred in August 2025 must be framed within a longer policy timeline to fully discern its shape. Since 2021, when China comprehensively banned Bitcoin mining activities, compliant mining sites rapidly disappeared domestically, and computing power was massively relocated. Superficially, the “mining fever” has receded, but outside the regulatory eye, underground mining has not completely vanished. Some miners transitioned abroad, while others continued to pursue computing power profits domestically through more concealed and higher-risk methods.
In recent years, exposed illegal mining activities have mainly centered around two types: one involves utilizing industrial parks, factories, and farms, illegally connecting to industrial electricity for mining; the other involves stealing cheaper electricity from abroad through cross-border lines, or even using small hydropower or border grid “grey electricity” from remote areas. Compared to these existing cases, the uniqueness of this case lies in the further escalation of its target—shifting from general industrial electricity to the electricity of state-level energy facilities like oil fields. This upgrade in the target reflects the extension of the profit-seeking nature of illegal mining: under the dual pressure of high "regular electricity" prices and stringent policies, some actors began to focus on energy nodes that appeared to have lower regulatory frequencies but posed extremely high risks.
As the original "hot mining areas" were cleared by policies, underground computing power began to seek new landing points in the shadows. Oil field electricity, remote grids, and the vicinity of infrastructure gradually became high-risk, highly covert targets. The emergence of this case is both a microcosm of this migration trend and foreshadows the potential for future illegal mining landscapes to continue extending into more concealed and sensitive energy fields.
Upgraded Concealment: From Abandoned Pigpens to Energy Blind Spots
The Planet Daily noted in its commentary on this case that "the transformation of abandoned pigpens into mining sites reflects the upgraded concealment of illegal mining." The logic of site selection is changing from traditional factories and warehouses to current abandoned slaughterhouses and pigpens: the more dilapidated and the less noticed the place, the more likely it is considered an "ideal mining site." Old walls can block out light, and existing ventilation and sewage systems can be adapted to reduce noise and heat, while nearby residents may tolerate intermittent noise and nighttime lighting better because, in their perception, these places are inherently "messy."
The reason why oil field electrical facilities have become a new hunting ground for illegal computing power is closely related to their monitoring blind spots. On the surface, oil field areas are often far from urban and residential areas, with relatively closed pedestrian management, seemingly making it easier to supervise; however, in reality, high-voltage lines often cross large areas, and there are many unmanned or infrequently inspected nodes along the route. Once someone grasps the direction of the lines and the surrounding terrain, they may choose to carry out the illegal connections at relatively hidden locations, creating a dark line from "high voltage to underground mining." At the metering level, if only local, long-term small anomalies occur without responding to other abnormal signals, these issues can easily be attributed to equipment wear or technical errors rather than triggering immediate criminal risk alerts.
From a regulatory perspective, this case exposes the shortcomings of electricity companies and energy enterprises in metering monitoring and early warning systems. Future corrective directions should at least cover three aspects: firstly, for key facilities such as oil fields and high-voltage transmission, to refine segmented metering and load curve analysis, enhancing sensitivity to abnormal electricity consumption patterns; secondly, to narrow down the "unmanned zones" around lines by combining geographic information with video, infrared, and other multi-dimensional monitoring methods; thirdly, to strengthen the information linkage with departments like public security and cyberspace administration so that when suspicious high-load electricity and network nodes appear, it can quickly assess whether an underground mining site exists. The improvement of these technical and collaborative methods will directly determine whether similar cases can shift from “accidental detection” to “systematic prevention” in the future.
Underground Computing Power Economics: The Illusion of High Risk and High Reward
In the calculations of mining economics, electricity prices remain one of the core variables that determine profitability. By illegally tapping into the oil field high-voltage lines, Zhang and Zhao attempted to construct an ideal model of “zero electricity cost mining”: burdening only a one-time equipment cost and site concealment modification fees, while completely shifting the largest component of daily operating costs, electricity fees, onto energy companies and grid systems. As long as Bitcoin prices stay within a certain range and computing power is continuously online, theoretically, they can seek to maximize profit margins without the pressure of electricity costs.
However, this model's premise involves a severe undervaluation of long-term criminal risks and the probability of capture. The 36 mining machines represent a substantial upfront investment, and since oil field electricity is the target of theft, it inherently increases the chances of being noticed and investigated. Actors often overestimate the stability of profits under the short-sighted logic of “earning a little more each day,” while seriously underestimating the reality of extreme negative returns such as a ten-year prison sentence. Once the case is exposed, all previous investments may not only vanish but also lead to the cost of losing freedom, leaving behind an irreversible criminal record.
There may also exist more complex roles in the industry chain surrounding this type of underground computing power: intermediary miners who help find locations and connect to electricity resources, equipment vendors who provide equipment and technical operations, and "insiders" within the power system who tip off or participate in the illegal connections. In many narratives of illegal mining, these roles form a gray service network. However, it is important to emphasize that based on the currently disclosed information, this case specifically identifies Zhang and Zhao, and there is no public evidence supporting other potential links. Therefore, while discussing underground computing power economics, it is reasonable to infer motives and structures, but one cannot forcibly insert unverified roles into the specific case facts.
After the Hammer: Next Steps for China's Illegal Mining Migration
The electricity theft mining case that occurred on the oil field high-voltage lines has become more than just a singular case judgment; it resembles a heavy blow directed at the market and the industry. The ten-year and four-year and ten-month prison sentences, accompanied by corresponding fines, send a very clear signal: once the electricity stolen is that of important energy facilities, and used for high-energy-consuming mining activities, judicial authorities will lean towards severe penalties as a deterrent, creating a demonstrative effect for future imitators. For those still weighing whether to "take risks" as underground miners, this case undoubtedly raises the psychological threshold, placing the balance between “computing power arbitrage” and “loss of freedom” in a more prominent position.
However, intensified crackdowns do not mean that risks have completely vanished; the more realistic scenario is that underground mining may further migrate toward cross-border electricity and overseas infrastructure. On one hand, the supervision of domestic energy facilities and electricity metering keeps improving, and the precedent effect of similar oil field cases will inevitably compress the living space for stealing electricity for mining domestically; on the other hand, some participants with technological and capital resources might turn their attention to regions abroad with relatively loose regulations and lower energy costs, even continuing grey mining through complicated cross-border electricity access methods. This "spillover" not only brings new governance challenges to foreign electricity systems but also complicates transnational law enforcement and regulatory collaboration.
For readers and the industry, the most immediate takeaway from this case is the importance of compliant mining and energy security. Computing power itself is not an original sin, but seeking profits at the expense of damaging public resources and challenging critical infrastructures will only push the entire industry into a cycle of stronger regulation and worse public opinion. For a considerable period in the future, the regulatory tug-of-war surrounding mining activities will be in a stalemate: on one side are the rigid demands for energy safety, carbon emission targets, and financial stability, while on the other is the flexible space for technological innovation and industrial development. On this taut rope, any attempts to circumvent rules, steal electricity for computing power profits, may ultimately become a “demonstration case.”
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefit group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefit group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
