Shenzhen IT man’s 183 Bitcoins seized, case charge changed from gambling to theft

The same person, the same batch of Bitcoin, being investigated by police in two different locations under different charges. Shenzhen IT professional Li Dong was targeted by police in Zhangjiajie, Hunan, and Changge, Henan, due to holding a large amount of Bitcoin. A total of 183 BTC were seized across both locations, worth over 80 million yuan. More intriguingly, the initial charge of “running a casino” was eventually reversed to “theft” and “infringement of citizens’ personal information.” What issues does this case reveal?

Basic Facts of the Case

Li Dong is an IT security engineer born in the 1980s, who previously worked in network security at several well-known internet companies before settling in Shenzhen to start a business. According to his family, Li Dong began trading stocks and cryptocurrencies in 2016, accumulating a certain amount of Bitcoin. However, police investigations believe that the source of his Bitcoin is “from other channels.”

The seizure details in the two locations are as follows:

At current Bitcoin prices of approximately $92,607, the market value of 183 BTC has reached this level.

Why Did the Charges Change Multiple Times?

Initial Charges and Subsequent Reversal

In May 2024, Zhangjiajie police filed a case based on anonymous tips, investigating an online gambling case, and Li Dong was identified as a suspect. By September 2024, Zhangjiajie police summoned Li Dong on suspicion of “running a casino” and seized 103 BTC from his digital wallets.

Subsequently, Changge police also filed a case against Li Dong for the same “running a casino” charge, seizing 80 BTC.

However, the charges later shifted. The Henan Changge Procuratorate ultimately prosecuted Li Dong for “theft” and “infringement of citizens’ personal information,” rather than the initial “running a casino” charge. What does this shift imply?

Meaning Behind the Shift

Changing from “running a casino” to “theft” indicates that the procuratorate believes the evidence for the initial gambling charge was insufficient. If Li Dong was truly running a casino, why was the charge changed to theft? This suggests:

• The original gambling case lacked sufficient evidence to establish a complete case
• After re-evaluating the evidence, authorities believe the source of the Bitcoin involves theft
• The addition of the personal information infringement charge hints at possible illegal acquisition of others’ data

But this also raises new questions: if it’s theft, why was the initial accusation gambling? Do the investigative logic of the two police jurisdictions differ?

Key Doubts in the Case

Several points in this case warrant attention:

• The same batch of Bitcoin was seized separately by two police agencies; does this indicate overlapping enforcement?
• Zhangjiajie police have already liquidated nearly 50 million yuan; is the handling process compliant?
• The change from “running a casino” to “theft” suggests the original charge may have been problematic
• The case was scheduled for trial in January 2026 at Changge Court but was immediately adjourned for re-trial; what is the reason?
• Li Dong claims he has been trading normally since 2016 to accumulate Bitcoin; how do authorities determine the source as illegal?

Implications for Coin Holders

This case serves as a warning for large Bitcoin holders:

• Holding large amounts of Bitcoin requires proof of legal source and transaction records
• If the Bitcoin comes from legitimate trading platforms, keep transaction vouchers and exchange account records
• A complete evidence chain is crucial when facing judicial investigations
• Even if charges are ultimately changed, Bitcoin assets may be frozen for a long time

Summary

The key point of this case is the multiple changes in charges—from “running a casino” to “theft.” This reflects adjustments in evidence assessment by law enforcement. The case is still ongoing; the Changge Court has held a hearing but announced a recess for re-trial, and the final verdict remains pending.

For large Bitcoin holders, this case highlights two important issues: first, how to prove the legal origin of Bitcoin; second, how to protect one’s rights when legal authorities intervene. Under the increasingly regulated environment, large Bitcoin holders need to manage their assets and records with greater caution.