PANews reported on December 14th that the Procuratorial Daily published an article titled "Establishing Multiple Judicial Disposal Pathways for Criminal Cases Involving Virtual Currency." The article proposes improving the judicial disposal pathways for criminal cases involving virtual currency:

First, clarify the legal status and role of third-party institutions. Future legislation could include third-party institutions in the category of judicial auction assistants, granting them exclusive qualifications for "one-time, targeted, and non-public bidding."

Second, a dual system of technical standards and procedural norms will be established. The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, together with financial regulatory authorities, will jointly issue dual standards. Price assessment will use the average price of the 20 days prior to the transaction date or the victim's acquisition cost as the benchmark. A unified on-chain evidence storage format will be implemented, and proceeds from the sale of assets will be directly transferred to a special fiscal account to prevent funds from flowing back into cryptocurrency trading channels.

Third, strengthen the seamless integration of prosecutorial oversight and rights protection throughout the entire process. The procuratorate participates in the entire handling process, requires third-party institutions to submit regular progress reports, and establishes a mechanism for informing parties of their rights and addressing objections.

Fourth, explore differentiated disposal models. Differentiated disposal measures include realization, destruction, and return. For cases involving the return of victims' property, a targeted auction-based realization model can be prioritized to ensure full refund of proceeds. For example, if victims have not yet redeemed stablecoins after being defrauded, and they wish to return the original currency, it can be directly returned, provided it complies with regulations, avoiding exchange rate losses. For cases involving the confiscation of contraband, destruction or technical sealing models can be used to prevent re-entry into the market. For example, for tokens specifically used for pyramid schemes or gambling, if liquidity is poor and market depth is insufficient, forced realization may lead to devaluation; therefore, they can be destroyed according to law, and the destruction record should be recorded in the judgment. For high-value currencies whose proceeds from crime have been mixed with legitimate investments, realization should be prioritized to maximize the recovery of losses. Furthermore, for cases involving smaller sums or those difficult to trace technically, simplified disposal procedures can be explored, such as a comprehensive assessment model. This involves determining the value and ownership of the virtual currency involved in the case based on relevant evidence when the circulation path cannot be fully traced.