In criminal cases involving currency, the judicial disposal of virtual currencies has always been a controversial issue in practice due to the lack of clear legal basis. On February 9, 2026, the Shanghai High People's Court issued the "Guidelines on Regulating the Execution of Online Virtual Property (Trial Implementation)," which was the first time that a high court had systematically regulated the entire process of virtual property execution within the court execution system. The "Guidelines" included virtual currencies in the scope of executable property. However, from the perspective of lawyers' case handling practice, although the document systematically stipulated the seizure, custody, and disposal of virtual currencies during the execution stage, it still did not provide clear solutions for frequently occurring problems in practice. This article will discuss three major pain points in the judicial disposal process of virtual currencies in conjunction with the "Guidelines" and case handling practice. 1. Virtual currencies involved in cases are often disposed of by the police during the investigation stage. In criminal cases involving virtual currencies, it is common for the public security organs to dispose of the virtual currencies involved in the case during the investigation stage. The reasons are usually large price fluctuations, high difficulty in storage, and the need to convert them into cash for compensation to the victims. However, the problem with this approach is that the virtual currency involved in the case has been disposed of prematurely before a court trial has confirmed guilt and before the amount involved has been determined. At this point, the case is still in the initial stage of criminal proceedings. Whether the behavior constitutes a crime and what crime it falls under is still undetermined; whether the virtual currency should be classified as illegal proceeds or legal property, and whether it meets the prosecution standards, are also unclear; relevant evidence is still being collected and verified. Disposing of the virtual currency at this stage is essentially a substantive disposal of property that has not yet undergone legal evaluation. More importantly, this disposal is irreversible: once the virtual currency is converted into cash, it is difficult to reverse; if the conclusion of the case changes, for example, if no crime is found, the disposed virtual currency cannot be restored to its original state. At the same time, in some cases handled by Attorney Shao, it can be seen that the case evaluation is actually affected by the existing disposal results: even if there is a dispute over whether the case is guilty or not, the space for a not guilty verdict is significantly reduced given that the property involved has already been disposed of. The limitations of this newly issued "Guideline" are as follows: First, it only regulates the execution stage and fails to address the issue of preliminary disposal that is common in the investigation stage; second, even in the execution stage, the "Guideline" does not address the core issue of "irreversible disposal"—there are still no clear rules on how disposed property should be returned in cases of withdrawal of a case, non-prosecution, or acquittal.2. Inconsistent Disposal Paths and Price Determinations Directly Affect the Amount of Conviction In specific cases, the methods of disposing of the virtual currencies involved are not uniform. From the perspective of case-handling practice, the public security organs' disposal paths for virtual currencies vary. Some involve direct conversion to cash through OTC (over-the-counter) trading channels with U-traders; some are handled through overseas exchanges; some are operated by third-party institutions; and some involve allowing the parties involved to dispose of and cash out themselves. Procedurally, some have completed approval procedures and created written records, while others only have a simple "statement of circumstances" describing the disposal process. Currently, it is quite common for public security organs to entrust third-party institutions to participate in the disposal. In practice, these institutions often intervene under the guise of "technical services" or "disposal assistance," with significantly different fee ratios. In some cases, the disposal cost reaches 15% to 30% of the amount involved. According to Reuters, a Shenzhen-based technology company has disposed of more than 3 billion yuan of cryptocurrency on behalf of governments in multiple regions since 2018. However, currently, such third parties are not judicial disposal entities, and their qualification standards, entry conditions, and liability boundaries are unclear. Compared to the diversification of disposal paths and the lack of unified standards, the issue of cryptocurrency price determination is more prominent. According to Attorney Shao's experience communicating with case handlers across the country, the standards for determining the price of the same cryptocurrency vary across different cases: some use the price on the date of seizure, some calculate based on the actual sale price, some refer to the time of the incident, and some use the party's purchase cost as a basis. The sources of prices are also inconsistent, potentially coming from exchange averages, specific transaction prices, third-party quotes, or even internally determined prices. There is also a lack of unified standards regarding timing. Some are disposed of immediately after seizure, while others are delayed for months or even longer, and these different disposal times often directly lead to significant differences in the cryptocurrency price benchmark. To address these issues, Article 18 of the "Guidelines" attempts to construct a price determination mechanism through a path of "market price—negotiated price—inquiry—assessment," but from a practical implementation perspective, the core issues remain unresolved: the relationship between the price used for conviction and the actual sale price is unclear; and there is still a lack of clear remedies for situations where the party does not accept the price determination. 3. Lack of Regulatory Support for Collaboration with Overseas Exchanges; Enforcement Remains Limited to "Freezing, Difficult Transfer" In numerous cases, the virtual currencies involved are actually stored in accounts on overseas centralized exchanges. However, based on current enforcement practices, judicial authorities' ability to investigate and control such assets remains limited.If the defendant cooperates, assets can be disposed of by transferring them to a designated account; however, in cases where the defendant does not cooperate, it is usually only possible to freeze the account, and it is difficult to directly transfer virtual currency. Technically, Chinese judicial authorities can freeze accounts by sending letters or requesting assistance, but cannot directly enforce deductions from overseas exchanges. Legally, overseas exchanges are not directly bound by Chinese jurisdiction, and their cooperation depends on their own compliance policies, judicial assistance arrangements, and the degree of recognition of the requesting entity's identity. In practice, there are also issues such as a lack of stable identity verification mechanisms, concerns about information leakage, and a lack of clear response plans. Although the "Guidelines" do not directly stipulate a cooperation mechanism with overseas exchanges, Articles 17, 20, and 22 reserve some space for a "domestic entrustment, overseas disposal, and closed-loop repatriation" path. However, from a rule-based perspective, "overseas disposal" has not formed an operational institutional arrangement. For situations where execution fails, such as when overseas exchanges refuse to cooperate, respond late, or when price anomalies or asset risks occur during the transaction process, no corresponding remedies or liability mechanisms are stipulated. 4 Conclusion From the perspective of the execution procedure itself, the "Guidelines" provide relatively clear arrangements for the seizure and custody of virtual currencies, which is of practical significance at the current stage. However, in practice, the judicial disposal of virtual currencies often does not occur during the execution stage, but rather during the criminal proceedings. Under this premise, improving the rules at the execution level alone is insufficient to address the core issues in practice. Solving these issues still depends on establishing corresponding rules at the earlier disposal stage. [Attorney Shao Shiwei]