In recent years, blockchain technology has emerged as a transformative force across industries, with digital currencies standing at the forefront of innovation and legal debate. While cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have gained global traction, their legal status remains ambiguous in many jurisdictions. A landmark decision by the Shenzhen International Arbitration Court has now clarified a critical aspect of this debate: Bitcoin qualifies as property under Chinese civil law, despite regulatory restrictions on its use as legal tender.
This ruling marks China’s first formal arbitration case addressing the property rights of Bitcoin and sets a significant precedent for how virtual assets may be treated in private disputes. By affirming that Bitcoin can serve as a valid subject of contractual obligations and compensation, the tribunal has opened new avenues for dispute resolution in the rapidly evolving digital economy.
The Case Background
The dispute arose from a share transfer agreement between two applicants and a respondent. Under the terms:
- Applicant One agreed to transfer 5% equity in a company to the respondent for a total price of 550,000 RMB.
- Of this amount, 250,000 RMB was to be paid directly in cash.
- The remaining 300,000 RMB would be settled through the return of digital assets—specifically 20.13 BTC (Bitcoin), 50 BCH (Bitcoin Cash), and 12.66 BCD (Bitcoin Diamond)—held by the respondent on behalf of Applicant Two.
These digital assets were originally entrusted to the respondent for investment management. Upon their return, the profits generated would offset the outstanding share payment. However, the respondent failed to return the cryptocurrencies or make the required cash payment, prompting both applicants to initiate arbitration proceedings.
👉 Discover how digital asset disputes are now being resolved in real-world legal settings.
Key Legal Questions and Tribunal Rulings
1. Is the Share Transfer Agreement Valid?
Respondent’s Argument:
The agreement involved Bitcoin transactions, which are allegedly prohibited under Chinese regulations. Specifically, they cited the 2017 Announcement on Preventing Risks Associated with Token Issuance Financing, issued by seven Chinese financial regulators, which bans initial coin offerings (ICOs) and prohibits financial institutions from facilitating cryptocurrency transactions.
They argued that any contract involving virtual currency is inherently illegal and therefore void.
Tribunal’s Decision:
The arbitration panel rejected this argument, emphasizing a crucial distinction:
The agreement did not involve an ICO, securities issuance, fundraising, or money laundering—it was a private arrangement for asset repayment.
The tribunal noted that while China prohibits financial institutions from handling crypto-related services and bans public trading platforms from facilitating fiat-to-crypto exchanges, no law explicitly prohibits individuals from holding or privately transferring Bitcoin.
Thus, the contract was deemed legally valid and enforceable, grounded in principles of party autonomy and freedom of contract under the Contract Law.
2. Did Failure to Deliver Cryptocurrency Constitute Breach of Contract?
Respondent’s Defense:
They claimed delivery was impossible due to legal restrictions and asserted that the digital assets were intended for corporate capital contributions, meaning ownership belonged to the company—not them personally.
Arbitration Ruling:
The tribunal dismissed these claims, stating:
- Technical feasibility ≠ legal prohibition. Just because banks don’t support crypto transactions doesn’t mean individuals can’t transfer assets via blockchain.
- The assets were held in the respondent’s personal control and were never formally transferred to the company.
- Therefore, failure to deliver constituted a clear breach of contract.
This decision underscores a growing recognition: even if virtual currencies aren’t recognized as legal tender, they remain controllable, transferable, and economically valuable—hallmarks of property.
3. How Should Damages Be Calculated?
Applicant’s Claim:
Since Bitcoin cannot be physically returned, compensation should reflect its market value in USD—the standard pricing mechanism in global crypto markets.
Respondent’s Counter:
No official pricing mechanism exists in China; using USD valuations lacks legal basis and introduces uncertainty.
Tribunal’s Judgment:
The panel ruled that damages must be calculated based on:
- Market prices at the time of default
- Publicly available exchange data (e.g., closing prices)
- Established trading practices
Citing Article 113 of the Contract Law, the tribunal held that compensation should cover foreseeable losses resulting from breach. While no interest could be awarded on the crypto assets themselves (since they aren’t legal currency), monetary compensation for lost value was fully justified.
Final damages: $493,158.40, plus a 100,000 RMB penalty for bad-faith conduct.
Broader Legal Implications
This case reflects a nuanced but important shift in China’s judicial approach:
| Regulatory Stance | Judicial Recognition |
|---|---|
| ❌ No legal tender status | ✅ Recognized as property |
| ❌ No bank support for crypto | ✅ Private transactions allowed |
| ❌ ICOs banned | ✅ Contractual obligations upheld |
While government policy remains restrictive—especially regarding financial system integration—the courts are increasingly willing to protect individual rights over virtual assets when disputes arise between private parties.
👉 See how blockchain-based ownership is reshaping modern asset management.
Relevant Regulatory Framework
Two key documents shape China’s stance on virtual currencies:
1. 2013 Notice on Preventing Bitcoin Risks
Issued by PBOC and five other agencies:
- Declares Bitcoin a virtual commodity, not legal currency.
- Prohibits financial institutions from handling Bitcoin transactions.
- But affirms: Individuals may engage in Bitcoin trading at their own risk.
2. 2017 Announcement on Token Financing Risks
- Bans ICOs and crypto exchanges.
- Prohibits fiat-to-crypto trading platforms.
- Does not ban private peer-to-peer transactions or personal ownership.
These rules create a paradox: while institutional involvement is restricted, personal possession and exchange remain in a gray zone—now clarified by arbitration precedent.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: Can Bitcoin be legally owned in China?
Yes. Although it lacks legal tender status, there is no law prohibiting individual ownership or private transfers. Courts and arbitral tribunals recognize it as a form of virtual property with economic value.
Q2: Are cryptocurrency contracts enforceable?
Yes—if they don’t involve regulated activities like ICOs, banking services, or public trading. Private agreements for investment, repayment, or exchange have been upheld in arbitration and some court rulings.
Q3: How are crypto losses valued in legal disputes?
Courts typically rely on public market data from major exchanges around the time of breach. USD pricing is widely accepted due to global trading norms.
Q4: Can I claim interest on unrecovered Bitcoin?
Not directly. Since Bitcoin isn’t legal currency, traditional interest doesn’t apply. However, once converted into a monetary claim (e.g., USD equivalent), post-judgment interest may be awarded.
Q5: Does this mean China supports crypto?
No. This ruling does not signal regulatory approval. It simply means that within private law frameworks—especially contract and property law—courts will protect legitimate expectations and enforce agreements where no public policy is violated.
Q6: What risks should investors consider?
Even with judicial protection, investors face significant risks:
- No regulatory oversight
- No recourse against market volatility
- Limited enforcement mechanisms
Always assume "buyer beware" applies fully to crypto transactions.
👉 Learn how secure digital wallets are becoming essential tools for asset protection.
Conclusion
China’s first Bitcoin arbitration case represents a milestone in the legal evolution of digital assets. While regulators maintain tight control over financial systems, the judiciary is stepping in to fill the gap, ensuring fairness in private dealings involving cryptocurrencies.
Core takeaways:
- Bitcoin is treated as property in civil disputes.
- Private contracts involving crypto are enforceable if lawful in purpose.
- Damages are assessed based on market value, not speculation.
- Judicial protection exists—but operates within strict boundaries.
As blockchain continues to redefine ownership and value exchange, cases like this lay the groundwork for a more sophisticated legal framework—one where technology and law evolve together.
Core Keywords:
Bitcoin arbitration China, cryptocurrency legal status, virtual asset property rights, blockchain dispute resolution, private crypto transactions, smart contracts enforcement, digital currency regulation