Qian Zhimin Bitcoin case:  Law firms vie to lead victim representation in the English civil recovery battle 

（ This article published on Caixin  on 📅12/02/2026 ）

On 16 February 2026, when families across China gather for lavish Chinese New Year’s Eve feasts to welcome the Year of the Horse, a group of lawyers will be absorbed in a pivotal court hearing taking place thousands of miles away in England. 

A two-day hearing in the English High Court has been scheduled on Chinese New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day (16 and 17 February) to determine key procedural issues that could shape the future of Qian Zhimin’s high-stake Bitcoin civil recovery case. 

Before the unprecedented case can reach its substantive legal issues, the court must first resolve a thorny procedural question. The question centres around the legal representation of the large number of potential Chinese claimants – how they should be represented in the civil recovery proceedings and who should represent them. 

This point is tackled by English High Court judge Mr Justice Turner during the hearing on 21 January 2026. It is the latest development in the civil recovery proceedings, launched by the UK’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in September 2024. The case will determine the fate of more than 61,000 Bitcoin seized in the UK from Qian Zhimin – whether the £5 billion crypto asset obtained through “unlawful conduct” can be recovered by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for the UK’s public purse or some (or all) of them shall be carved out for the purpose of compensating the 128,000 Chinese victims as a whole or 8,000 victims or more shall be compensated directly via their claims in the current English proceedings?

While on 15 October 2025, the DPP proposed making a provision for a potential compensation scheme for the victims of the “Lantian Gerui” or Qian Zhimin Bitcoin fraud, there has been a growing number of private law firms representing different groups of victims or investors to advance proprietary claims under Section 281 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) in respect of the seized cryptoassets.

Given the complexity of the case, the sheer value of the asset and the vast number of potential claimants, the court is concerned about “the proliferation of representation”. If too many different groups of victims with “no distinctively different features” or “no fundamental conflict of interests” are represented by a large number of law firms in s 281 claims, they may file competing motions or different legal strategies for the same set of facts. This, according to Mr Justice Turner, will slow down the process of dispensing justice to the victims and drain the very assets the victims are trying to recover due to unnecessary legal fees. 

During the latest hearing, Mr Justice Turner emphasised the “overriding objective” of the English Civil Procedure Rules (CPR): to deal with cases justly and at a proportionate cost. He proposed to streamline the proceedings and push for a representative order under which a lead firm would be appointed to advocate for the ‘same interest’ of the victim class.

In the view of the court, while the personal tragedies – families losing life savings and homes - are distinct, the legal cases of the victim’s claims, whether they are pensioners or highly educated investors, raise common issues, share a similar pattern or facts of falling victim into the same fraud scheme, and face the same challenge to establish the proprietary interest required for a successful recovery. 

Law firms currently representing various groups of victims have been given three weeks to submit skeleton arguments – concise legal briefs – outlining any objections to the appointment of a lead firm, such as that their specific clients have distinct interests from the general pool of victims. Their arguments will be heard during the hearing in February before the judge decides if a representative order is appropriate. 

The race for the "lead" role

The push for a single representative firm has met with a complex landscape of existing legal line ups. Several firms are known to have been representing various groups of victims in the civil recovery case. UK firm Fieldfisher is one of the first firms spearheading recovery efforts for Chinese victims. As of 21 January 2026, it represents over 2,100 claimants, up from 1,300 in November 2025. It has teamed up with Gen Law Firm in China to assist and coordinate with the Chinese claimants. 

Global heavy weights Eversheds Sutherland and DLA Piper are also representing two separate groups of victims. Chinese firm Duan & Duan claims to represent several hundred claimants, according to the press. 

The number of victims represented by these firms seems to be increasing. As the counsel of Eversheds Sutherland told the court that the firm currently represents a small number of victims, but the group is expected to “expand exponentially”.  

A joint team formed between UK litigation boutique Candey and Chinese firm Yingke is one of the most recent entrants to the race, claiming to represent over 5,000 victims. 

Currently, around 8,000 victims, just 5-6% of the estimated total, are represented in the civil recovery proceedings, and a public notice to the Chinese victims was published on CPS’s official website in October 2024. The court is confronting the reality that s 281 could not realistically be the primary restitution mechanism for the victims, as such a proposed representative order might prevent new applications or new firms from participating in the ongoing proceedings after a specified cut-off point. This critical procedural issue will be dispensed at the judge’s discretion.

A major flashpoint in the upcoming hearing will be the financial implications on firms and third-party litigation funders that have already invested significant resources assisting thousands of victims in their s281 applications. It is common for this type of work to be funded by litigation funders or undertaken on a ‘no-win, no-fee’ basis (conditional fee arrangements, CFA), or damages-based agreements (DBA). 

These firms would argue that their clients’ path to recovery has been built on private risk - lawyers and barristers, and the funders backing the case, have effectively fronted the costs to ensure the victims they represent have a seat at the table. For these firms already in the trenches, the court’s push for a single 'lead' representative could have a direct financial impact. If a new or existing firm is appointed to lead, who will bear the cost of that, and how should the original firms be reimbursed if they were to take a back seat as the case progresses? 

The “Cost of Justice” 

The judge’s preference for a unified representation model reflects the harsh economic reality of the English legal system. In the High Court, litigation is a high-stakes financial venture, with senior counsel fees and expert forensic costs often exceeding £500–£1,000 per hour. It is a common market practice for the litigation funders to take a cut between 20%-40% of the gross recovery, while law firms would take a further 20% or more. 

If many law firms and barristers, backed by litigation funders, represent many groups of victims, the legal costs would consume a significant portion of the £5 billion Bitcoin haul before any victim is repaid.

A sobering lesson can be drawn from the Post Office Horizon scandal case. In the Post Office case, 555 sub-postmasters eventually won a landmark settlement of £57.75 million against Post Office over the flawed Horizon computer system. However, because the litigation was so complex and expensive, £46m of that settlement (nearly 80%) was swallowed by legal fees and success fees to the litigation funders. The victims were left with only £11m to share between them - an average of just £20,000 each, which is a fraction of the life-changing losses many had suffered. 

Furthermore, Post Office paid out £256.9 million to 15 law firms and two barristers’ chambers between September 2014 and March 2024, in relation to the Horizon scandal case and related compensation schemes. 

The Post Office scandal has been widely described as the “biggest miscarriage of justice” in modern British legal history. This serves as a cautionary tale that the court is eager to avoid repeating in the Bitcoin recovery case. 

Competing legal strategies 

Financial incentives aside, these law firms will also want to become the lead counsel so they can assert control of the proceedings and push ahead with their own legal arguments and strategies. 

For example, shortly before the 21 January 2026 hearing, Candey put in an application for the expert tracing report and other findings from the criminal investigation to be shared with its victims, but as neither the DPP nor the judge had been able to assess the proposal adequately, the Court requested that the application be dealt with in a subsequent hearing. The team’s submissions also reflected a different approach to how victim claims might ultimately be structured, including ideas that distinguish between groups of victims based on factors such as investment size and evidential strength, so the process could be more effective and justice delivered sooner. 

Procedurally, the case could evolve in different directions: some claimant groups may ultimately explore settlement-based solutions with the DPP, while others may seek to press ahead with Section 281 claims in pursuit of a proprietary declaration. At this stage, however, it would be premature to ascribe any particular strategy to any specific firm.

The next critical question: the applicable law 

Despite whether a representation order will be issued by the judge, the question of “applicable law” is probably the most fundamental legal hurdle in the current civil recovery case. This matter will be addressed during a week-long hearing scheduled for early July. Upon hearing all the arguments, the judge will then determine whether English law or Chinese law should apply to determine whether the vast number of Chinese victims can be recognised as the rightful owners of the seized Bitcoin.

If the seized property had been mixed with other assets or exchanged from its original form (cash to crypto), English equity law provides processes to "trace" or "follow" the property, which is critical to be recognised as proprietary owners (rather than merely creditors) under s281. 

However, if Chinese law is the applicable law, though Chinese victims are not barred from making s.281 claims — they face a materially higher evidential and doctrinal burden, and many, if not all, will fail not because of nationality, but because Chinese law may characterise them as creditors rather than proprietary owners. For instance, once money is handed over in an investment (even a fraudulent one), the original owner may lose their "property right" and instead gain a "right to repayment". If this is the case, then the victims may only be entitled to the original amount stolen/lost and would have no claim to the "windfall" — the billions of pounds in profit created by Bitcoin's price surge since 2014. Essentially, if Chinese law applies, their legal status could shift to that of a creditor, instead of the owners of the Bitcoin. Undoubtedly, the arguments of this critical substantive issue are likely to involve expert evidence, which would be expensive, contested, and uncertain.

Legal advisors for the victims are expected to argue for English law to apply in this case, given that the Bitcoin was seized in London and is held in the UK. However, the DPP may argue that the underlying fraud and the contracts between victims and Lantian Gerui (ultimately controlled by Qian) occurred in China. Therefore, the victims’ rights were created under Chinese contracts and Chinese law should apply. 

The insolvency proceedings 

During the hearing on 21 January, the judge acknowledged the parallel High Court insolvency proceedings filed by a Chinese creditor (petitioner Mr Wang Wu) in 2024 to wind up Lantian Gerui in the UK. This introduces a complex third player into the courtroom: the insolvency practitioners. 

The winding-up petitioner, known as Mr Wang Wu, is represented by fraud specialist law firm PCB Byrne. The legal team also includes Donald Lilly KC from 4 Stone Building, an expert in high-value chancery and commercial disputes, alongside Andrew Bird KC, a leading authority on financial crime and POCA. Interpath Advisory, which is KPMG's former UK restructuring division, has been engaged as the proposed liquidator.

Given the Ponzi-scheme characteristics of the case, many victims did not contract directly with Lantian Gerui. Instead, funds were often paid to so-called “uplines” or regional agents, rather than to the company itself. Even if liquidation were to proceed, significant uncertainties would remain, including how the liquidator would obtain reliable company records, how crypto-assets linked to Qian Zhimin’s money laundering activities would be distinguished from any assets of the company, and how creditor claims could be properly identified, verified and organised.

Section 311 of POCA provides that where property is subject to insolvency proceedings, civil recovery proceedings in respect of that property may not be commenced or continued without the permission of the court. In light of the parallel winding-up petition filed against Lantian Gerui, the High Court may therefore need to decide whether to grant permission for the civil recovery proceedings concerning the crypto assets to continue. Alternatively, if the crypto assets are found to form part of the insolvent estate of Lantian Gerui, the court may need to consider whether their realisation and distribution should instead be governed by insolvency law, subject to the prior determination of any third-party proprietary claims under s 281.

The February hearing is also expected to address how the insolvency proceedings may affect the civil recovery case. 

Other key messages from the January hearing

From the hearing in January, the court was clearly grappling with key procedural issues. The judge seriously questioned the possibility of running hundreds or thousands of mini-trials of Chinese victims' ownership and tracing inside an English civil recovery process. From the January hearing, it was apparent that the court was keen to focus on streamlined and coordinated legal representation, ensure manageability and consider, among other options, alternative mechanisms such as the provision for a compensation scheme proposed by the DPP last October. 

A clear willingness from the judge was to make good progress, while avoiding unnecessary cost and delay. His frustration at the “snail’s pace” of the proceedings to date during the hearing shows the court’s commitment to pragmatic justice. He urged all parties to work constructively to resolve difficult outstanding issues and to achieve a practical solution, so that the victims in China can receive fair, timely compensation and a measure of justice.   

Independent observer note

This article is written from the perspective of an independent legal observer, based on the author’s attendance at and observation of the public case management hearing on 21 January 2026, together with information placed on the public record. The author is not acting for any party in the proceedings and does not have access to non-public court papers or confidential materials.

In preparing this article, the author has taken into account publicly available information and, where appropriate, factual clarifications provided on a voluntary basis by certain legal representatives involved in the proceedings, to the extent that such information was consistent with what was ventilated in open court and did not engage any confidentiality or privacy restrictions. Any analysis, commentary or characterisation of procedural developments remains the author’s own and does not reflect the position, strategy or views of any particular law firm, claimant group or authority.