Chinese Court Declares Bitcoin as a Digital Asset

So, the Shanghai Court has jumped into this debate where the defendants were saying Bitcoin isn’t an "asset". If they went with that argument, it would mean the thieves could just keep the stolen Bitcoin. But luckily, they decided that Bitcoin is indeed an asset. This is huge because it means the victims might get their stolen funds back and it sets a precedent for future cases about Bitcoin being a digital asset. Plus, the chief judge made it clear that Bitcoin isn’t actually banned in China. That’s a big deal since a lot of people here still think Bitcoin is illegal in China, but it hasn’t been since forever.

It is quite and irony to the regulators, 18.88 Bitcoins can be considered as a good amount to start a living. I bet china will look into the advantage having an asset that will go to the highest level. Just saying.

This is confusing news. 1. Whether Bitcoin is an asset or not, or whatever they call it there, is immaterial to the case. Whatever category it is placed under is irrelevant and cannot be a ground for the robbers to simply keep it. They are stealing something and claim that it is not an asset, therefore they can keep it? That sounds absurd. 2. How do they define an asset? Strictly speaking, anything with value which is legally owned by a person is an asset or a property. What if the court would not declare the Bitcoin as an asset? What then is it? And would it not be protected by law?

Not according to the law, if Bitcoin isn't an asset then technically these criminals are put to the stand for nothing as they stole Bitcoin that isn't have any value in terms of being an asset. If the judge agrees to their argument then the criminals would simply keep the Bitcoin and a chance of them being free as well. If Bitcoin isn't identified as an asset like I previously said it will be a thing that doesn't have any value, if this happens even on a lower court like this one this can still have a precedent on other future cases which would be bad for Bitcoin overall in China. It isn't even about the basic definition of what an asset really is as the Judge even stated that Bitcoin was never not classified as an asset and has been recognized as one in a long time now.

I do not think there is anything new and to explain what is happening we must look to define the word "Asset" according to Chinese law: Source ---> http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Law/2011-02/15/content_1620615.htm Therefore, anything that has monetary value must be seen as assets, including Bitcoin. The real change if the court has dealt with Bitcoin as if it were "securities" that are defined according to the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC). Thus, the news was not accurate in defining the word "illegal", as according to CSRC, Bitcoin is not considered legal financial papers, but this does not mean that it is completely illegal (It is treated on the basis that it is a "Digital Asset" and therefore the law must protect it..)

Well securities in the first place are assets too so I really don't think they dig deeper into that since the argument of the defendants are about Bitcoin being an asset or not. Securities on the other hand are another type or classification within an asset so if they labeled cryptocurrencies as "Securities in the first place this ruling hasn't change anything with regards to how CSRC defined cryptocurrencies' classification of an asset. However we all know that not all cryptocurrencies acts like securities as we either have utility tokens and security tokens so this might be another topic the Chinese court will be handling if not their departments.

The point I wanted to make is about whether Bitcoin is legal in China or not? I wanted to make it clear that legal means that it is acceptable as "legal tender[1]*" just like all other securities such as the dollar, EUR, and others, and so far Bitcoin is illegal in China. The court’s decision is to classify Bitcoin as an asset and therefore it is protected by law (since Chinese law protects those assets) and the asset according to the legal definition is anything that has value and is not required to be legal tenders. There is a big difference between defining digital currencies as Digital Asset and legal tender. * [1] https://www.loc.gov/law/help/cryptocurrency/china.php

I know that when it comes to Bitcoin being classified as an "asset" like stocks or real estate it will be subject not only to income tax when earned but also capital gains tax when that crypto asset appreciates in value. The argument of the defendants about Bitcoin not being an "asset" is wrong in the first place and what I'm trying to point out is the judge confirming the recognition of BTC as an asset in China which I have highlighted. Also I like to clarify some things like I already know that China has no legal issues with cryptocurrencies aside from big Chinese crypto-related companies dominating their market like Bitmain and Huobi they also have a plan to make their payments digitized and also have one of the big mining pools in the Bitcoin network.