Cryptocurrency theft (Cake coins, SAD coins), court verdict: 10 years! Virtual air coins are not legal tender; does stealing them still avoid heavy punishment? Using technical means to transfer virtual coins—does that count as theft or cybercrime? Defendant Bai Mou, in collusion with others, stole the victim's Cake coins and SAD coins, and after exchange, illegally profited over 820,000 USDT. The court ultimately sentenced him to ten years and six months in prison for theft. The second-instance criminal ruling No. (2024) Yu 01 Xing Zhong 1095 issued by Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court provides a decisive answer. By dissecting the details of the verdict word by word, we clarify the legal boundaries behind it and analyze the logic of conviction and sentencing in virtual currency theft cases.

1. Full overview of the verdict: three conspirators stealing coins, technicians become prisoners This ruling fully records the case details, litigation process, and judgment results, restoring the full picture of a typical virtual currency theft case:
1. The criminal gang and division of labor: technical + information, precise operation The defendants Bai Mou, co-defendants Luo Mou and Wang Mou Yi (all convicted) conspired and divided tasks after premeditation, forming a complete chain of criminal activity: Wang Mou Yi was responsible for providing key information and illegally obtaining the blockchain private key of the "T" platform; Luo Mou and Bai Mou relied on technical skills to improve the private key and carried out core technical operations. Their clear goal was to steal virtual currency held by the victim Gao Mou on that platform.
2. The commission of the crime: transfer completed in 5 minutes, quick liquidation and sharing of proceeds On September 13, 2022, the operation was officially carried out with precision and speed: from 22:53 to 22:58 that night, Bai Mou, using the nickname "One Cat," sent a withdrawal script and the victim Gao Mou's wallet address to Luo Mou. Luo Mou then sent the script to execute; just one minute later, at 22:59:55, 69,900 Cake virtual coins (with explicit contract address) and 67,981 SAD virtual coins (same contract address) in Gao Mou's account were successfully transferred. After obtaining the coins, the three quickly exchanged the stolen virtual currency for 824,387.38 USDT (Tether), and immediately divided the proceeds: Wang Mou Yi received 314,463 USDT, Luo Mou received 254,433 USDT, forming a closed loop of "theft-exchange-division." On December 30, 2023, police officers from the Guancheng Branch of Zhengzhou Public Security Bureau summoned Bai Mou to the case, and the case officially entered judicial proceedings.
3. First-instance verdict: convicted of theft, sentenced to ten years and six months After trial by Zhengzhou Gancheng Hui Autonomous District People's Court, based on all evidence, the court found that Bai Mou, with the purpose of illegal possession, secretly stole citizens' property worth a significant amount, constituting theft. Considering Bai Mou's lack of prior criminal record, the court sentenced him to ten years and six months in prison and a fine of 50,000 RMB; ordered Bai Mou and co-defendants to jointly compensate the victim Gao Mou for 824,387.38 USDT or equivalent RMB value (the part already compensated by co-defendants was offset); the seized iPhone 12 was to be handled lawfully by the confiscating authority.
4. Appeal dispute: Bai Mou denies the crime After the first-instance verdict, Bai Mou appealed, arguing that the case did not establish the facts, claiming no subjective intent to steal or objective secret theft, presuming guilt; his defense also argued that Bai Mou only participated in technical exchanges, did not control accounts or share proceeds, and that the victim's statement was unclear and co-defendants' confessions conflicted, so it should not be used as the basis for conviction. To support this defense, the defense team presented a series of evidence, including awards for vulnerability discovery, photos from security forums, screenshots of public welfare speeches, etc., aiming to prove Bai Mou's professional skills and active participation in public welfare, and that he should not be considered a criminal.
5. Second-instance ruling: dismisses appeal, upholds original verdict After the Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court formed a collegial panel to hear the case, it rejected each of the appeal reasons and defense arguments, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the original verdict. The court explicitly stated that the technical achievement evidence submitted by the defense was unrelated to the criminal facts of the case, only demonstrating Bai Mou's technical ability, and could not negate his criminal conduct; the entire evidence chain was complete and sufficient to establish Bai Mou's guilt of theft.

2. Core legal basis of the verdict: Zhengzhou Court’s 3 key viewpoints, setting the tone for virtual currency theft cases Lawyer Ding, combining this case's ruling and relevant provisions of the Criminal Law and judicial practice, summarizes three key judicial viewpoints from Zhengzhou Court, which serve as core legal guidance for such cases and are highly relevant for virtual currency holders and technical practitioners:
1. Virtual currency qualifies as "property" under criminal law, theft can be prosecuted The court, while not explicitly stating the nature of virtual currency, clearly conveyed the core point through conviction and sentencing: although virtual currency is not legal tender, it can be exchanged for USDT and other stablecoins, which can then be converted into legal currency, possessing characteristics of property value, controllability, and circulation, thus falling under the "property" protected by criminal law. This recognition aligns with the Supreme Procuratorate's guidance, which states that digital currency has both data and property attributes, and must be recognized as property in criminal law. In practice, many mistakenly believe that "virtual currency transactions are unprotected, and theft is meaningless," but as shown in this case and many other judgments, as long as virtual currency can be legally converted and has clear value, theft behavior meets the elements of theft. The realization value of over 820,000 USDT in this case meets the standard of "particularly large amount" for theft, corresponding to a sentencing range of over ten years, which is a key basis for the court's heavier punishment.
2. Technical means do not change the criminal nature; "secret theft" is clear For the defense arguments of "technical exchange rather than crime" and "no secret theft" raised by Bai Mou and his defense team, the court used chat records, transaction timelines, and other evidence to precisely identify the nature of their conduct: the three conspired and used illegal private key acquisition and script writing to transfer virtual currency without the victim's knowledge, fully meeting the elements of theft "for the purpose of illegal possession, secretly stealing others' property." This viewpoint directly addresses common defense points in such cases. In practice, many technical personnel defend themselves by claiming "only providing technical support" or "no direct sharing of proceeds," but according to the theory of joint crime, as long as they participate in premeditation and core criminal acts, they are responsible for the entire case. Bai Mou's technical ability was a tool for committing the crime, not a reason for exemption. This legal logic also warns all technical practitioners not to fall into the misconception of "technological neutrality" and become accomplices in crime.
3. Complete electronic evidence chain sufficient for conviction and sentencing Virtual currency crime cases often face evidence collection difficulties due to concealment, but in this case, the judicial authorities established a complete electronic evidence chain to confirm the criminal facts: including chat records between Bai Mou and Luo Mou (containing withdrawal scripts and wallet address records), virtual currency account transaction screenshots, blockchain traceability records, forensic opinions, confessions of co-defendants, etc., forming a full evidence loop of "premeditation - implementation - realization - sharing." Based on case experience, the difficulty of fixing evidence in virtual currency crimes is much higher than in traditional cases. The successful conviction in this case hinges on the closed electronic evidence chain. In practice, victims often face obstacles in their rights due to inability to provide complete on-chain records and transaction proofs, but in this case, the judicial authorities used chat records, blockchain traceability, and confessions to thoroughly refute the "insufficient evidence" defense, providing a model for evidence collection in similar cases.

3. Judicial trend warning: virtual currency is not beyond the law; theft will face heavy penalties From Zhengzhou Court's ruling, combined with recent similar cases, the judicial regulation trend in virtual currency field is clear:
On one hand, it does not deny the property attribute of virtual currency and punishes property crimes involving virtual currency severely. Whether it is the ten years and six months sentence in this case or the previous sentence of eleven and a half years for the main offender in another Zhengzhou coin theft case, it shows that judicial authorities treat virtual currency theft with sentencing intensity consistent with traditional theft, and cases involving "particularly large amounts" can even result in life imprisonment.
On the other hand, electronic evidence has become the core of conviction, with blockchain tracing technology strengthening case foundation. As blockchain tracking technology matures, the anonymity advantage of virtual currency diminishes. Judicial authorities can precisely identify criminal behavior and responsible persons through wallet addresses, transaction hashes, and fund flow data. Previously, in multiple cases handled by Lawyer Ding, even if suspects converted assets through overseas exchanges, they could obtain transaction records via international judicial cooperation. The idea of escaping responsibility through technical means is no longer feasible.

In conclusion, this verdict again dispels the misconception that "virtual currency theft is not subject to heavy punishment": the illegal property attribute of virtual currency cannot serve as a "shield" for theft nor as a "shield" for avoiding criminal responsibility. Whether technical personnel use their professional skills to commit crimes or ordinary persons participate in theft and profit-sharing, as long as they violate criminal law, they will face severe sanctions. For virtual currency holders, it is crucial to properly safeguard wallet private keys and transaction account information, avoid disclosure, and keep complete transaction records and on-chain evidence; if theft occurs, promptly secure evidence and report to the police, and when necessary, engage professional lawyers to assist in evidence collection and communication with judicial authorities. For technical practitioners, "technology for good" is an inviolable bottom line—do not turn professional skills into tools for crime.

Case source: Lawyer Ding