Judicial Disposal of Involved Virtual Money: Is it Necessary for Domestic "Intermediary Institutions" to Intervene?

Recently, there have been some new trends in the judicial disposal of virtual money involved in cases. Especially after a public security bureau's legal team in a certain city announced a new model, it has attracted widespread attention from judicial authorities and disposal companies. Common concerns include: What is the specific operation method of this new model? Does domestic judicial disposal have to go through similar intermediary institutions? And what is the future development trend of judicial disposal in the country? This article will analyze these questions one by one.

1. Analysis of the New Model

This new model involves a property trading exchange. According to public information, this exchange is a state-owned holding enterprise with multiple authorized qualifications, including serving as a network judicial auction platform for courts at all levels nationwide and as a platform for the disposal of assets involved in criminal proceedings submitted to the national treasury. However, the auction projects published on its official website mainly focus on traditional case-related assets, and there have not yet been any projects for the disposal of Virtual Money.

In terms of the disposal of the involved Virtual Money, the exchange signed a cooperation agreement with a certain city's Public Security Bureau and then entrusted a third-party disposal company to carry out the actual disposal, monetization, and fund settlement work overseas.

Essentially, this model does not have substantial innovation and still adopts the approach of joint disposal both domestically and internationally.

2. Analysis of the Necessity of Intermediary Institutions

So, are similar intermediaries necessary in the judicial disposal process? From the current regulatory provisions, domestic third-party disposal companies have already become a makeshift measure in judicial activities, and it seems unnecessary to introduce additional intermediary structures.

The reason for the differing viewpoints is mainly due to the current regulations strictly prohibiting any entity (, including judicial authorities ), from conducting the exchange business of Virtual Money and fiat currency within the territory. The disposal and realization of the Virtual Money involved in the case inevitably involves this process.

To avoid this issue, the disposal model has evolved from direct domestic cashing to entrusted overseas cashing. The current "domestic + overseas joint disposal" model basically meets regulatory requirements at the business level.

In this case, if introducing an intermediary cannot fundamentally optimize the existing model, then the disposal process should be simplified as much as possible to avoid adding unnecessary steps.

3. Analysis of Future Development Trends

Currently, the disposal model of virtual money involved in cases by judicial organs across the country is not unified. Some places still adopt the original domestic direct cash-out method, which not only violates relevant regulations but may also bring legal and political risks such as money laundering and illegal currency exchange.

Even though there are relatively compliant disposal models, many judicial authorities or disposal companies may not understand them, or in practical operations, various factors may be considered instead of simply pursuing compliance. However, non-compliant disposal methods are no different from planting hidden dangers in judicial activities, which will eventually lead to problems.

In light of this, the Supreme Court has included the judicial disposal of the Virtual Money involved in the case as a research topic, indicating the urgent need for a unified disposal standard in judicial practice.

There may be the following options for the future development direction:

1. Under the condition that existing regulations remain unchanged, the primary approach will be a compliant domestic and international joint disposal model, while a small amount of non-compliant disposal will inevitably occur.

2. Modify relevant regulations to allow judicial authorities to directly handle and liquidate assets abroad;

3. Modify relevant regulations to establish a unified disposal platform ( domestically, which may be at the central or provincial level ), provided by specific institutions to offer disposal services for local judicial authorities.

Regardless of the approach taken in the future, ensuring the compliance and risk controllability of the disposal process will be an important challenge faced by the judicial authorities.