Bitcoin faces legal tests as China’s SPC details stance

SPC intensifies judicial response and research on virtual currency cases

China’s top court has elevated news/china-virtual-currency-regulation-governance/”>virtual currency (虚拟货币) to a research and adjudication priority, focusing on how judges should respond to emerging case types and strengthen financial judicial protection. According to the Supreme People’s Court (SPC), workstreams include studying remedies, contract validity, and enforcement mechanics across civil and criminal dockets.

The move signals a shift from piecemeal rulings toward more unified standards for virtual assets (虚拟资产/数字资产). It also reflects pressure from front-line courts confronting fast-evolving disputes, inconsistent judgments, and cross-border enforcement obstacles.

Why this matters for China’s financial judicial protection system

Better-defined judicial responses can reduce uncertainty for litigants, creditors, and platforms, while reinforcing public policy lines against illegal fundraising and money laundering. According to the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC), mid-2025 Guiding Opinions strengthened court–regulator cooperation, investor protection, and enforcement linkages across capital markets.

SPC leadership has framed the challenge as calibrating protection and deterrence in a changing financial environment. Editorially, this aligns with calls to clarify ownership recognition while filtering out conduct that disrupts financial order. “Conduct in-depth research on judicial response measures to new financial cases such as private equity funds and virtual currencies,” said Wang Chuang, head of the Civil Second Division.

On property recognition, courts have increasingly treated certain cryptocurrencies as protectable interests when civil law criteria such as scarcity, exclusive control, and economic value are met. Based on analysis in the China Journal of Comparative Law, this supports ownership claims and civil-law remedies even where some transactions remain restricted by policy.

On contract validity, public-order limits remain decisive. According to the Shanghai Songjiang District People’s Court, an ICO constitutes unauthorized and illegal public fundraising; by extension, agreements that bypass regulatory prohibitions are often deemed invalid with parties restored to the status quo ante where possible.

On anti-money laundering (AML) and disposal, criminal exposure is rising. Based on data from the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, 2,971 people were prosecuted for money laundering last year, underscoring enforcement momentum that now encompasses virtual assets. In parallel, courts are piloting seizure and disposal practices for digital assets; PANews Lab has reported models such as converting seized coins via compliant channels or, where required, secure destruction.

At the time of this writing, Bitcoin (BTC) trades near 63,723 with a bearish sentiment and very high volatility around 10.68%. This market context does not alter adjudicatory standards but informs risk assessments in related disputes.

Forthcoming clarifications courts may address (司法解释/指导意见)

Property rights in 虚拟货币/虚拟资产 and restitution after invalid contracts

Expect further clarity on whether and how virtual assets qualify as “things” or controllable electronic records under civil law, and on restitution when contracts are invalid. Front-line commentary urging accelerated rules highlights inconsistent outcomes; according to ChainCatcher authors Sun Guanjun and Wei Yuzheng, clearer standards are needed on validity, remedies, and evidence.

AML thresholds, seizure/disposal, and SPC–CSRC cross-regulatory coordination

Judicial interpretations (司法解释) could refine “serious circumstances” thresholds for laundering via virtual assets, standardize valuation and disposal of seized tokens, and strengthen regulator–court information flows. Courts are also exploring cross-border channels for lawful conversion and repatriation, alongside guidance for handling privacy-focused coins under public-interest tests.

FAQ about Supreme People’s Court (SPC)

Are cryptocurrencies recognized as property in China, and what rights do holders have?

Some courts recognize crypto as protectable property interests, enabling civil-law remedies. Transactional prohibitions still apply, and offending contracts may be void.

When will new judicial interpretations on virtual assets be issued, and what issues are likely to be clarified?

No timetable is public. Likely topics include property classification, contract validity and restitution, AML thresholds, and uniform rules for seizure and disposal.