Written by: Liu Zhengyao

Introduction

Imagine this scenario: one day, programmer Xiao Liu logs into his wallet and discovers that the Bitcoin worth nearly one million yuan has mysteriously disappeared—someone has quietly transferred it away by cracking the private key. He immediately reports to the police, and they quickly identify the suspect.

However, what follows confuses Xiao Lin: the prosecutor's office has serious internal disagreements about how to charge the suspect. Some say it should be classified as theft, while others argue it can only be charged as "illegal acquisition of data from a computer information system." The outcomes of these two charges could be vastly different.

This is not an isolated case. In recent years, as virtual currencies have become more mainstream, similar legal disputes have been playing out in courts across the country. In cases of "coin theft," some receive heavy sentences while others get off with lighter charges. Behind this lies a fundamental problem that Chinese law has yet to fully address: what exactly is virtual currency?

How Coin Theft Occurs

Before discussing legal issues, let’s briefly understand how virtual currencies are "stolen."

Virtual currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are essentially stored on blockchain networks. The reason you "own" it is that you hold a string of passwords known as "private keys." Whoever has this private key can use the corresponding coins.

Therefore, stealing virtual currency is completely different from picking a lock to steal cash or physical goods. Hackers either invade your computer or wallet software to obtain the private key through technical means, or they create fake websites and send phishing emails to trick you into handing over your private key.

Once coins are transferred away, the record on the blockchain cannot be revoked. This characteristic is one reason the legal disputes arise.

Two "Viewpoints" of the Law

In China's current legal system, handling such cases mainly involves two charges, each following a completely different logic.

First Logic: Virtual currency is property; stealing it is theft.

This logic sounds quite intuitive. Bitcoin can be used to buy things and exchanged for money, with prices reaching hundreds of thousands per coin; also, generating Bitcoin consumes a great amount of electricity and other energies—why shouldn’t it be considered property? Courts holding this viewpoint usually classify the case as theft or fraud, and once the amount involved is huge, the sentencing can be quite severe, with serious cases resulting in sentences of over ten years or even life imprisonment.

Second Logic: Virtual currency is just data; stealing it constitutes "illegal acquisition of data from a computer information system."

This logic comes from a technical perspective. The existence of Bitcoin on the blockchain is essentially a string of numerical records. The act of a hacker invading a wallet and obtaining a private key aligns with the characteristics of "illegal intrusion into a computer information system." Under this logic, the maximum sentence is only 7 years, far lighter than that for theft.

The same event can lead to two sets of logic and two different outcomes—this is what causes headaches for the parties involved and their lawyers. Although more and more Chinese courts are starting to recognize the property attribute of mainstream virtual currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, achieving a unified national standard is challenging, and some courts still consider virtual currency as just data, not property. Moreover, how to distinguish between so-called mainstream coins and non-mainstream coins is not a standard widely accepted in legal circles. Coupled with the regulatory rules in mainland China prohibiting virtual currency trading and pricing services, the disappearance of the second logic is not so straightforward.

Why do court rulings differ?

The answer goes back to a fundamental contradiction: the characterization of virtual currency by Chinese law is in itself contradictory.

On one hand, regulatory authorities like the People's Bank of China have clearly stated that virtual currencies like Bitcoin do not have the same legal status as fiat currency and cannot be circulated as currency in the market. Following the "9.24 Notice" in 2021, related departments further issued the "Document No. 42" in 2026 (the "Notice on Further Preventing and Dealing with Risks Related to Virtual Currency"), completely prohibiting virtual currency-related businesses. From this perspective, virtual currency is not regarded as "legal property" in the eyes of the authorities.

Especially in dealing with civil disputes related to virtual currencies, loans, sales, and investment contracts involving virtual currencies are all deemed invalid, with legal risks borne by the parties involved. Currently, while some courts recognize the value attribute of virtual currencies in civil rulings, they do not adopt a protective stance towards holding or trading virtual currencies.

On the other hand, when courts handle criminal cases related to coins, they frequently acknowledge that virtual currencies have property attributes that can be confiscated. Regarding their subsequent submission to the treasury or return to victims, they can be liquidated through judicial disposal of virtual currencies.

This creates a strange situation: virtual currencies are considered property in criminal law but may not be regarded as legally protected property in civil law. In different judicial processes, the same item can lead to completely different conclusions in the eyes of different courts.

How Serious is this Dispute?

From publicly available cases in recent years, the verdicts of similar cases in different regions show significant discrepancies.

Some courts have determined that although Bitcoin is not legal tender, it has actual value, and theft should be handled as a theft charge, resulting in severe penalties. Others maintain that since the state does not recognize virtual currencies as legal property, the "public and private property" defined by criminal law naturally does not include virtual currencies, which can only be charged as data crimes.

Even more confusing is that even in the same type of cases, courts at different levels may overturn lower court rulings, changing the direction of conviction. This means that even if two cases involve a loss of one million yuan of virtual currency, how your case is ultimately ruled can largely depend on which city you are in and which judge you encounter.

This uncertainty poses a real risk for the growing number of ordinary people participating in virtual currency trading.

What is the Core Difference Between the Two Charges?

In simple terms, the difference lies in the objects protected by the law.

Theft protects property rights—if someone takes your belongings, whether it is cash, gold, or a phone, the law ensures you receive fair compensation and adequate punishment for the criminal. The more valuable the property, the greater the crime.

Illegal acquisition of data from a computer information system protects the security of information systems—if someone unauthorized intrudes into your computer system, damaging the integrity and confidentiality of data. This charge doesn't care much about how "valuable" that data is but is concerned with the act of intrusion itself.

When virtual currency is characterized as "data," even if it is worth millions, it may only be treated under data crime laws, significantly diminishing the penalties. This has led to a clear imbalance in justice: for stealing items of equal value, penalties vary drastically due to the "nature of the item."

The existence of this dispute fundamentally arises from the fact that the current Chinese legal system was established before the widespread popularization of virtual currencies.

Charges like theft and fraud were legislated when the objects in mind were tangible properties or legal tender in bank accounts. The private keys and tokens on the blockchain completely exceed the imaginative scope at that time.

Meanwhile, the state's regulatory stance on virtual currencies has been tightening, which has caused judicial bodies to hesitate in acknowledging their "property attributes"—after all, if courts clearly characterize Bitcoin as property protected under criminal law, it essentially amount to a de facto acknowledgment of its legal status.

This policy-level dilemma eventually translates into various specific judicial cases.

Conclusion

The question of "what crime should be applied for stealing virtual currency" seems highly technical, yet it reflects the confusion of an era: when the speed of technological advancement far exceeds that of legal updates, existing rules begin to show cracks.

Virtual currency is neither traditional currency nor ordinary data; it is a completely new existence. The legal characterization of it ultimately needs to be clarified at the legislative level, rather than leaving each victim to gamble on "what the judge they encounter thinks."

Before that answer arrives, understanding the existence of this dispute is, in itself, a form of self-protection.

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。