Shenzhen Employee Jailed for Posing as Hacker to Extort Crypto
A Pingshan District court ruling establishes a key precedent by treating Bitcoin and USDT as property for criminal sentencing.
An employee in Shenzhen has been sentenced to more than three years in prison after stealing core research and development data and posing as an overseas hacker to extort cryptocurrency from his employer.
The defendant, surnamed Jia, targeted a company located in the Pingshan District of Shenzhen. According to reports from Odaily, Jia stole sensitive R&D data and attempted to leverage it by demanding ransoms in Bitcoin (BTC) and Tether (USDT). Specifically, Jia demanded 0.88 BTC, 0.8 BTC, and 90,000 USDT. Following a report to the police, Jia was apprehended and subsequently sentenced to three years and three months in prison, along with a fine of 10,000 yuan.
Legal Status of Virtual Assets
The case is particularly notable for the judicial determination regarding the nature of the demanded assets. The procuratorial authority determined that while Bitcoin and USDT are not recognized as legal tender within China, they are nonetheless virtual assets that possess property value. This distinction allowed the court to quantify the scale of the crime based on the market value of the digital assets.
In this instance, the total value of the virtual currency involved in the extortion attempt was estimated at over 630,000 yuan.
Industry Implications
This ruling is significant for the broader tech and finance sectors in China because it explicitly recognizes cryptocurrency as "property" for the purpose of determining the severity of a crime. Despite China's strict and well-documented stance against the use of cryptocurrency as legal tender, this case demonstrates that the judicial system will still assign tangible value to these assets when calculating damages or sentencing in cases of theft and extortion.
By treating digital assets as property, the court has provided a legal precedent that simplifies how virtual assets are handled in criminal proceedings. This ensures that perpetrators cannot avoid harsher sentencing simply because the stolen or extorted assets are not official government-issued currency.
Future Outlook
As corporate espionage and cybercrime evolve, this case serves as a warning to insiders attempting to exploit digital assets for illicit gain. Legal observers will likely watch for further cases to see if this interpretation of "virtual property" remains consistent across different provinces and types of financial crimes. It remains to be seen if this precedent will extend to other types of digital assets, such as NFTs or in-game currencies, in future criminal trials.