On June 5, the High Court of England convened a procedural hearing to address the complex asset disposal in the Qian Zhimin case, marking a critical juncture for 16,000 Chinese victims registering claims through an international law firm alliance. This proceeding, identified as the largest Bitcoin money laundering case in the UK, stems from the illegal public deposit scandal involving Tianjin Lantian Ge Rui Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. The urgency of the hearing reflects the unprecedented scale of digital assets involved and the intricate cross-border legal dynamics required to resolve the distribution of funds originating from a decade-old financial fraud.

From 2014 to 2017, Qian Zhimin orchestrated a massive Ponzi scheme through ten P2P financial products branded as 'Lantian No. 1,' 'Lantian No. 2,' and 'You Li You Bi,' promising 'zero risk, high returns' under the Lantian Ge Rui banner. Utilizing promotional meetings and multi-level marketing tactics, she solicited public investment with inflated interest rates, raising over 40 billion yuan from nearly 130,000 individuals across a four-year period. In July 2017, Qian Zhimin fled China, traversing Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Malaysia before reaching the UK, where she was arrested in April 2024 and subsequently sentenced to 11 years and 8 months in November 2025. The trajectory of the illicit funds reveals a deliberate conversion strategy: since 2014, Qian Zhimin continuously purchased Bitcoin on Huobi, accumulating 194,951 Bitcoins at an average cost of 2,815 yuan . By the time of sentencing, Bitcoin's value had surged 266 times to 750,000 yuan per coin, with police seizing 61,000 Bitcoins from her computer upon arrest.

The central challenge now lies in determining the legal nature of these 61,000 Bitcoins and establishing the framework for their disposal. This issue represents an unprecedented test in the history of judicial cooperation between China and the UK. Currently, approximately 16,000 Chinese victims have entered the civil recovery process under the UK Proceeds of Crime Act, representing less than 13% of the nearly 130,000 victims in the original Lantian Ge Rui case. These investors have coalesced into recovery alliances comprising both UK and Chinese law firms to navigate the litigation. Data compiled by Woofun AI shows that the largest representative group is the UK boutique firm Candey, collaborating with Chinese firms including Yingke, Duan & Duan (Beijing), and Mankun, while the court-designated lead firm Fieldfisher primarily partners with Jiren Law Firm. Other international coalitions include Eversheds Sutherland with Jingshi (Shenzhen) Law Firm, alongside teams like Debenhams Ottaway and Duan & Duan UK representing hundreds of additional victims.

This cross-border collaboration model divides responsibilities distinctly: Chinese law firms manage victim communication, evidence collection, and material organization, whereas UK firms handle court appearances, legal opinions, and procedural advancement. A primary focus of the June 5 hearing was not asset distribution but the allocation of legal fees, a prerequisite for resolving collective rights before addressing individual loss assessments. To prevent resource duplication, the court designated Fieldfisher as the lead firm to advance the issue of applicable law on behalf of all victims, clarifying that associated costs constitute common expenses to be shared by the beneficiary group. As of the end of April, Fieldfisher had incurred approximately 190,000 GBP in costs related to this common legal issue, a figure calculated after deducting workload corresponding to its own clients.

The debate over cost allocation sparked controversy regarding whether expenses should be shared equally by the number of victims or proportionally by claim amount. Some legal counsel argued that equal sharing is unfair given the variance in loss amounts represented by different teams, while others contended that calculating by amount would significantly increase statistical and accounting burdens. The judge ultimately adopted a compromise solution requiring each law firm to pay a share to the court account based on the proportion of victims they represent, with a deadline of June 26 at 4 PM. This fund will be held by the court rather than paid directly to Fieldfisher until a responsibility-sharing mechanism is clarified.

Notably, Woofun AI notes that several large representative teams have engaged litigation financing institutions, suggesting this initial cost will be primarily borne by the financing parties rather than the victims directly.

The definitive direction of the case hinges on the legal applicability hearing scheduled for July, which will determine whether the UK court applies Chinese law or UK law. Under Chinese judicial practice, participants in illegal fundraising are typically recognized as having a creditor-debtor relationship with the platform, granting them the right to request the return of funds rather than ownership of specific assets. If this perspective prevails, victims' claims would likely be limited to their original losses, disregarding the substantial appreciation of the Bitcoin holdings. Conversely, UK common law features a 'tracing' system that allows rights to extend to new assets if a continuous connection to misappropriated funds can be proven, even if the asset form has changed. Woofun AI analysis suggests that if the tracing doctrine is applied, the asset scale corresponding to 61,000 Bitcoins could reach tens of billions of dollars, offering a significantly higher recovery potential than the original principal.

Concurrently, the domestic liquidation process in Tianjin is underway, with registration and verification extended to January 2026 due to the case's vast geographical scope and participant volume. Lawyers involved emphasize that the domestic liquidation and UK civil recovery processes are independent; investors who have registered domestically must still assert their rights according to UK court requirements to participate in the distribution of the seized Bitcoin. The P2P scam from ten years ago has devastated countless families, and while Qian Zhimin has been brought to justice, the legal mechanism for recovering losses remains an unprecedented challenge. The outcome will set a major precedent in the history of judicial cooperation between China and the UK, with subsequent developments closely watched by the global financial community.