The Chinese government want to take as most money as they can from companies and citizens, while laws, regulations, and enforcement in China are not too good for benefits of commercial companies and citizens. It's more realistic to forget expectation that Chinese government with their massive power will not do refund, delivery to victims.

That government even do worse things like set up laws and regulations to milk money in China mainland and if they act like this, if you are a citizen, you will want something safe rather than trying to make noise, suing the government there and in return you will more likely receive no refund but severe legal and financial issues.

This is somehow complicated.  It was said that the funds taken were in fiat currency and not Bitcoin, and then these funds bought BTC.  Since the funds is converted to BTC, can the government trace the amount of BTC to each particular investor?  If it can't be traced, then possibly monetary compensation will do.  Returning the invested money to each Bitcoin, plus probably some compensation.

If the things is done with what I stated above, it would be a huge profit for the UK government and probably the Chinese government.

Because OP opened a topic without having a clue what this whole thing is about!
Just as anyone on this forum rushing to fish some merits, he opened one thinking it's such a great idea and then when he gets corrected, starts crying like a little kid!

The whole thing is pure idiocy, what if the scammer had invested in EOS? Would they have to pay back the victims in EOS now?  
Imagine a thief steals your car
- the car is worth $10 000
- the thief only gets $2000 from a shady shop for it
- he hits the casino and wins $50 000

How much would you get, $10 000, $2000 or $50 000?


You can ignore people, but you can't ignore stupidity, not on this level as it reeks sky-high!

They cannot trace the Bitcoins directly to the victims since the victims did not invest Bitcoin, but it should not be that hard to return the money as they have probably already determined the total amount lost in the scam.
My point is that if all those 61k Bitcoins were purchased using the proceeds of the scam, then the victims should have ownership rights over those Bitcoins.

Why should the government own Bitcoin that was not purchased with its own money, maybe it should only be entitled to the remaining balance that no victims have claimed.

Yes, if they will keep it.

You raise a good point, because what if the total value of those Bitcoins was already lower than the amount lost in the scam..

Would the government cover the deficit and compensate the victims for the remaining losses?  
Of course not, so if they cannot refund the losses, they also should not be entitled with the gains.

They don't necessarily have the right to the Bitcoins because they invested fiat, so they may only be entitled to compensation in fiat.
I just brought up the possibility that they should receive the Bitcoin if the country making the final decision does what is right instead of being greedy.

---

You mentioned profits, what particular Chinese law says that the government can keep the gains from the confiscated Bitcoins when there are identified victims claiming the amount they lost?

---

Just to clarify, I'm not saying the victims should be paid in Bitcoin, what I'm pointing out is that they should receive the proceeds from selling the Bitcoin at its current price.

Because obviously it's not hard to understand how gains are realized, only when a sale takes place.

Are you sure about that? Because the law does not say so..

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/section/281

---

Based on my understanding, if those victims can prove that the money they invested was converted into Bitcoin, then they may have a claim to ownership of those Bitcoins, but they still need to establish their legal ownership rights, and the court will ultimately decide.

I like this news, as it clearly demonstrates how regulators "look out" for citizens - even if, in this specific instance, the citizens in question belong to another country. I have previously raised the issue of regulators confiscating illicitly obtained assets from bad actors, while questioning whether those assets are actually returned to their original owners (though identifying those owners can often be difficult). This news story serves as a prime example.

They should. But whether they actually get it - that’s a whole different story.

If you’re going to strip the original owners of their crypto assets, then you should strip them of everything. What kind of interest? No, of course not.

Why on earth? Let them return the assets that were confiscated (bitcoin to bitcoin).

It looks like two governments will now be at each other's throats over the right to wrest crypto assets away from their original owners (now that they have become valuable). Is this really how a regulator ought to look out for its citizens?

As usual, whoever is "stronger" is "right" - and will take the spoils.

First, the Bitcoins did not originally belong to the victims as it was Chinese yuan that was stolen from them through a fraudulent investment scheme (Ponzi scheme) operated by Zhimin Qian and her associates. It's just a debate over whether they will receive the original amount they lost, or the current value of the Bitcoins that were purchased using the proceeds of the scam.

This will be a long debate, but what is certain is that the seized Bitcoins are currently worth more than enough to cover the victims' estimated original losses.

Hasn't the UK court already decided that Chinese law applies in this case? So we probably don't need to discuss UK law in this case.

But this issue is actually a debate for legal experts, not us Bitcoin forum users. So yeah, whoever ends up receiving such a huge appreciation, they're really lucky.