The mistake is to sell. Buying at the lowest has become a mantra in the crypto world. Past mistakes around bitcoin have served as a lesson: the United Kingdom seems determined never to give up what is now called “digital gold”. Faced with the rise of cryptocurrencies and their volatility, London adopts a firm stance: no matter the pressure, liquidation is no longer done. This refusal to liquidate reveals a strong political and symbolic ambition in the global game surrounding BTC.
In Brief
- •The United Kingdom holds 61,000 BTC seized during a massive Chinese-origin fraud.
- •The victims, 128,000 people, demand full restitution in bitcoin, not in pounds.
- •Authorities consider partial redistribution, based on the initial value of the losses.
- •A legal battle is underway, potentially lasting until 2027 according to victims’ lawyers.
The Rise of the “Bitcoin Queen” and the Record Seizure
Even before the Qian case, bitcoin-related romance scams were multiplying: a man recently lost 1.4 million dollars in crypto, believing he had found love. This story begins in China, between 2014 and 2017: Zhimin Qian launches a huge scam, promising inflated returns to thousands of investors.
The scheme collapses. Qian converts the funds into bitcoin and then flees to the United Kingdom with forged documents.
In Hampstead in 2018, law enforcement discovered 61,000 BTC in digital devices, a seizure that the British press called the largest crypto operation ever made.
Judged in September 2025 in London, Qian pleads guilty to possession and transfer of criminal property — without the core fraud, committed in China, being judged directly. A civil trial is still to come, scheduled for January 2026, opposing the United Kingdom and the 128,000 Chinese victims.
The issue? To know whether London can legally keep or return the BTC. This case, halfway between a digital thriller and global case law, questions states’ ability to handle crypto crimes in legal gray areas.
State vs Victims: Battle Over Rights and Profit
The heart of the case is legal: to whom should the seized bitcoins belong? The United Kingdom claims to base its retention on the criminal property law. However, many specialized lawyers recall the principle of equitable tracing, which allows victims to establish ownership and recover stolen assets.
Ashley Fairbrother said in the media:
I’m not sure that English law is on the side of the British government regarding its ability to keep the seized Bitcoin.
Something is wrong because the State often proposes to reimburse the original value of the fraud in fiat currency, not the current value of BTC, which causes billions of capital gains to be lost to the victims.
If the court accepts this mechanism, the United Kingdom would capture the difference, capitalizing on bitcoin’s growth over the years. The victims demand the restitution of BTC, valued today, not just the initial amount. The civil court will have to decide between national budgetary interest and an international justice of equity.
The precedent could influence how other states handle cross-border crypto seizures in the future.
The United Kingdom Anticipates the Post-Sale: Strategic and Symbolic Posture
Selling these bitcoins would be to deny the market’s lesson: keeping is better. The United Kingdom shows that it prefers to keep this digital capital intact rather than sell it off. This choice stems from a posture of symbolic as well as economic power. London positions itself as a major player in global crypto regulation.
Here are some key facts:
- •61,000 BTC seized in Hampstead—the largest single seizure in the United Kingdom;
- •128,000 victims claim their rights against the British state;
- •The current value far exceeds the initial loss amount (~£5 billion);
- •The civil trial will open in January 2026.
This conservatism is part of a strategy: not to yield to the market, to impose case law. The United Kingdom tries to set a norm: when a state seizes cryptos, it does not sell them immediately; it keeps them as strategic assets. This stance could inspire other nations to do the same.
In the United States, selling BTC has not been discussed since Donald Trump took office. His government keeps its digital assets. Better yet: his minister Scott Bessent affirms that buying new bitcoins by the USA is not excluded. A sign that, for some, the strategy is not only to hold but also to strengthen reserves.