The charge was changed three times, from 'operating a casino' to 'theft'.

183 programmers in Shenzhen$BTC The case exposed risks that all holders overlooked.

---
Case process

The party involved, Li Dong (a pseudonym), is a 'post-80s' network security engineer from Shenzhen.

The prosecution accused him of using overseas gambling server vulnerabilities in 2020 to steal personal information of 1.84 million Chinese citizens and embezzle 35.5 million yuan in website agent commissions.

Seizure situation: The police in Zhangjiajie, Hunan seized 103 BTC, which has been converted to 49.61 million yuan; the police in Changge, Henan seized 80 BTC, valued at about 40 million yuan. A total of 183 BTC, amounting to over 90 million yuan.

Charge evolution: Initially, the police in both locations filed cases for 'operating a casino', but later Zhangjiajie changed it to 'illegally obtaining data from computer information systems', and Li Dong was released on bail.

Finally, the Changge Procuratorate prosecuted for 'theft' + 'infringement of personal information'.

On January 5, 2026, the Changge Municipal Court held a public hearing, with the defense pleading not guilty, arguing that the actions against illegal websites do not constitute theft.

Currently adjourned, with a verdict to be announced at a later date.

---
Three major controversies

The case is undecided, and the currency has been liquidated.

After Li Dong was released on bail, the Zhangjiajie police liquidated the seized 103 BTC for 49.61 million yuan, but the case is still in the trial phase, and the charges have changed three times, with the final verdict still pending.

There are two questions worth pondering: Is the legal process compliant? If ultimately declared not guilty, with such significant fluctuations in BTC prices, how will it be settled?

Charge changed three times

From 'operating a casino' → 'illegally obtaining data' → 'theft + infringement of information', the charges jumping around actually reflect the dilemma of defining new types of cybercrime.

Even the prosecution is still exploring how to characterize this case.

The legal boundaries of black eating black

Defense viewpoint: The funds from illegal online gambling are not protected by law, so it does not constitute theft.

Prosecution viewpoint: Regardless of the legality of the object, the act of theft itself constitutes a crime.

The public is also divided into two camps: some support 'robbing the rich to help the poor', while others worry about the blurred boundaries of the rule of law.

Essentially, this is a matter of interest distribution, not simply about who is right and who is wrong.

---
Insights for us

The biggest insight from this case is: Holding currency domestically carries legal risks that are far more complicated than you might think.

Lazy Orange highlights a few key points for everyone:

Stay away from gray industries: Helping people exchange U, participating in funding schemes, OTC score running... You might think making a little money is great at the time, but once you get targeted, the consequences are truly unbearable.

Pay attention to policy changes: The legal status of cryptocurrencies in the country has been constantly changing. Pay close attention to policy trends and don’t wait until something goes wrong to regret it.

Be wary of 'picking up pie from the sky': In Li Dong's case, regardless of how it ultimately turns out, one thing is certain: he did hack a website, and no matter how skilled the technology, one cannot cross the legal red line.

Finally, the core of this case is not the moral dilemma of 'hacker vs gambling website', but rather the legal protection boundaries of digital assets.

The value of BTC has been rising, but the legal risks of holding it are also increasing.

For us ordinary traders, the biggest insight is: stay away from the gray industrial chain and pay attention to policy trends.