Challenges and Innovations in the Judicial Disposal of Virtual Money

Recently, an article titled "Criminal Involvement in the Disposal of Virtual Money: Challenges, Innovations, and Judicial Responsibility" has attracted attention in the industry. The author of the article comes from the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. Although the technical discussion in the article is somewhat superficial, it still serves as a window to understand the judicial sector's perception of virtual money.

The article first introduces the basic concepts, characteristics, and trading methods of Virtual Money, and cites relevant regulations from the central bank and seven ministries of the state, pointing out that there is currently no legal trading platform or evaluation and identification rules for Virtual Money in China. The author then analyzes the difficulties encountered in handling criminal cases involving Virtual Money, such as difficulties in evidence collection, value identification, and disposal and monetization.

It is worth noting that the article mentions that the property attributes of Virtual Money are generally recognized in judicial practice. However, this view does not seem to be entirely valid in the field of civil trials. Currently, courts generally adopt a non-acceptance attitude towards civil disputes involving Virtual Money. In contrast, there is a certain consensus on the recognition of the value of Virtual Money in criminal justice practice.

In terms of disposal, the article mentions a possible method of operation: after filing with the relevant authorities, entrust a third-party organization to cash out through a compliant exchange overseas, and then transfer the funds to a foreign exchange account opened by the court. For virtual money that endangers national security and public interest, the article suggests that it be destroyed.

However, these suggestions may face numerous obstacles in practical operation. First, the current regulatory policies do not allow domestic institutions to engage in the exchange of Virtual Money and fiat currency. Second, the practice of courts opening foreign exchange accounts to receive proceeds from the disposal of overseas Virtual Money also lacks feasibility.

In fact, in the current judicial disposal practice, the investigation authorities are responsible for seizing Virtual Money and transferring the relevant information along with the case to the procuratorate and the court. Although this practice is not innovative, it reflects the real dilemma faced by judicial organs when dealing with new types of assets.

Regarding the handling of privacy coins involved in the case, simple destruction may not fundamentally solve the problem. Taking Monero as an example, its issuance has no fixed upper limit, and destroying a portion may instead lead to a decrease in circulating supply, thereby increasing its value.

Overall, the judicial disposal of virtual money still faces many challenges. In the future, if relevant policies can be adjusted to allow the establishment of compliant virtual money trading institutions domestically, it may provide better solutions to this problem. Before that, judicial authorities need to continuously explore more efficient and reasonable disposal methods within the existing framework.