The Case of Cryptocurrency Theft Reveals Discrepancies in Judicial Characterization

Recently, a theft case involving millions of encryption coins has attracted widespread attention. The case not only demonstrates the complexity and risks in the field of encryption assets but also reveals the discrepancies in our country's legal definition of encryption assets.

Case Review

In May 2023, a Shanghai resident named Ou discovered that the encryption worth millions stored in a certain wallet had disappeared. After investigation, it was found that someone had transferred all the encryption away a month prior. Through technical analysis, Ou discovered a "backdoor" program in the wallet that automatically obtained private keys, and successfully tracked down information about a suspicious criminal suspect.

Subsequently, the police arrested three criminal suspects, who were front-end developers of the wallet platform. The three admitted to implanting backdoor programs in the wallet, illegally obtaining a large number of users' private keys and mnemonic phrases. However, they claimed that they did not actually steal any encryption assets, but rather agreed to use this information two years later.

During the investigation, the prosecutor discovered that there was another case within the case. The actual transfer of cryptocurrency from Mr. Ou was carried out by another former employee, Zhang 2. Zhang 2 had implanted a program in the client code as early as 2021 to collect users' private keys and mnemonic phrases, and in April 2023, he used this information to transfer Mr. Ou's cryptocurrency.

Judicial Handling of Disputes

Ultimately, all four suspects were sentenced to three years in prison for the crime of illegally obtaining data from computer information systems. However, this verdict has sparked controversy.

The main point of contention lies in the legal classification of encryption assets. Currently, there are two viewpoints in the judiciary regarding whether encryption assets belong to "property":

1. Consider encryption assets not as property, but as a form of data.
2. It is believed that encryption assets have the core attributes of property and should belong to property.

In recent years, an increasing number of cases have essentially recognized that encryption assets have property attributes and can be the subject of property crimes.

Conviction Controversy

There is a viewpoint that convicting the defendants in this case for the crime of illegally obtaining data from a computer information system does not adequately assess the criminal behavior of the four defendants. Some experts believe that convicting them for embezzlement may be more appropriate.

Reasons include:

1. Encryption assets have met the characteristics required for "property" in criminal law.
2. The defendant committed the crime by taking advantage of their position, which meets the elements of the crime of embezzlement.
3. Users store their encryption assets in a wallet, forming a legal relationship similar to custody.

It is worth noting that if convicted of embezzlement, one may face more severe penalties.

Conclusion

This case highlights the divergence in our country's legal characterization of encryption assets and reflects the necessity for the law to keep pace with the times. With the development of blockchain technology and the encryption asset market, we hope that future laws can more accurately define the legal attributes of encryption assets, providing clearer and more unified guidance for judicial practice.