A man named Deng Gang (pseudonym), entrusted by his nephew Deng Dawei (pseudonym), went to a designated location to collect payment for a virtual currency transaction but encountered the buyer Wang Qiang (pseudonym) who threatened him with a knife, forcing Deng Gang to notify Deng Dawei to transfer over 40,000 virtual currencies… So, did the actions of the suspect Wang Qiang constitute extortion or robbery?
The virtual currency robbery case in the middle of the night
In January 2023, a man from Hubei, Wang Qiang, contacted Deng Dawei online, expressing his willingness to purchase the equivalent Tether from him for 320,000 yuan, and they agreed to meet on the night of the 25th of that month at an intersection in Qiaokou District, Wuhan.
At that time, Deng Dawei was not in Wuhan, so he arranged for his uncle Deng Gang to conduct the transaction and agreed that after receiving cash, his uncle would send a notification for him to remotely deliver Tether. On the night of the transaction, Deng Gang drove to pick up Wang Qiang, who, sitting in the back seat, falsely claimed he needed to get money, leading Deng Gang to drive to a certain location in Jianghan District.
After the car stopped, Wang Qiang suddenly threatened Deng Gang with a knife: "Call your boss and tell him the money has been received." Deng Gang had no choice but to send a voice message to his nephew via a mobile app saying, "The money has arrived," and Deng Dawei then transferred 43,785 Tether to the account provided by Wang Qiang at the market price of that day. When Wang Qiang got out of the car, Deng Gang attempted to stop him and was cut on the left hand by the knife, resulting in a minor injury as determined by an appraisal.
After obtaining the money, Wang Qiang fled back to his hometown overnight and the next day exchanged 2,500 Tether for 17,000 yuan (after deducting a service fee of 100 yuan) through a friend. After receiving Deng Gang's report, the police arrested him at Wang Qiang's home on the evening of January 26, 2023. However, the remaining 41,285 Tether had been transferred to an anonymous account, and its whereabouts are unknown.
How to determine the charges and the amount involved has become the focus of contention.
On April 27, 2023, the case of Wang Qiang suspected of robbery was transferred to the Jianghan District Prosecutor's Office for review and prosecution.
"Although the virtual currency account provided by Wang Qiang was not real-name authenticated, the process of transferring and exchanging Tether can verify that he has received over 40,000 Tether that was robbed." After reviewing the evidence, the prosecuting attorney Fu Zhifeng concluded that although Tether does not have a currency attribute, it possesses the property attribute under criminal law, and the suspect's act of robbing Tether by violence and coercion constitutes robbery.
The prosecutor also discovered that prior to the incident, Wang Qiang was involved in other 'electric fraud' cases and was under bail by public security in another region for concealing and disguising criminal gains; thus, it was suggested that the public security agency supplement and transfer relevant evidence materials to prosecute alongside the robbery case. In August 2023, the Jianghan District Prosecutor's Office prosecuted Wang Qiang for robbery and for concealing and disguising criminal gains.
During the court hearing, there was a significant disagreement between the prosecution and defense regarding whether Wang Qiang constituted robbery and how to determine the amount involved. The defense believed that Deng Dawei transferred 43,785 Tether to the account controlled by Wang Qiang, which, based on the market price on that day, amounted to 299,489.4 yuan; however, the evidence could not prove Wang Qiang's absolute control over the account, and there existed a possibility that both Wang Qiang and Deng Dawei could control it. Furthermore, the Tether that had not been liquidated was transferred to an unknown account the day after the incident, making it impossible to prove that this portion was taken by Wang Qiang. Therefore, it could only be determined that Wang Qiang constituted a completed crime concerning the Tether that had been liquidated, amounting to 17,100 yuan.
Regarding the conviction, the defense argued that Wang Qiang threatened Deng Gang to extort Tether from Deng Dawei, but Deng Gang did not have custody of the virtual currency in question. Therefore, the defendant infringed upon Deng Gang's personal rights and Deng Dawei's property rights, and his actions did not conform to the form of robbery as defined by 'using violence or coercion against the owner, custodian, or guardian of public or private property to immediately take away the property'; additionally, Deng Gang's finger injury resulted from a dispute between the two, and the level of violence was insufficient to meet the serious violence requirement for robbery.
Although the prosecutor fully expressed prosecution opinions in court, the first trial court adopted the defense opinions. On November 30, 2023, the court sentenced defendant Wang Qiang for extortion and for concealing and disguising criminal gains, ordering a combined execution of a fixed-term imprisonment of four years and eight months and a fine of 13,000 yuan.
The prosecution filed an appeal, and the second trial resulted in a sentence of 11 and a half years.
"The conviction in this judgment is erroneous, the determination of the crime is incorrect, the application of law is improper, and the sentencing is too lenient, thus an appeal should be filed." The views of the prosecuting attorney were unanimously recognized at a joint meeting of prosecutors held at the Jianghan District Prosecutor's Office.
"Appeals are an important supervisory power granted to the prosecution, aimed at ensuring the correct implementation of the law and maintaining social fairness and justice," said Guo Yanping, a member of the Jianghan District Prosecutor's Office and deputy chief prosecutor.
After the first trial verdict, the court filed an appeal; the defendant Wang Qiang also appealed.
One of the points of contention in this case is whether the victim Deng Gang had control over the robbed Tether.
"Deng Gang was entrusted by Deng Dawei to go to a designated location to trade virtual currency, and the two should be regarded as a single civil act." The prosecuting attorney explained that although the Tether originally belonged to Deng Dawei, before the incident he had agreed with Deng Gang that once the latter informed him of receiving cash, he would deliver the equivalent Tether. Therefore, Deng Gang was the decisive person in the payment, meaning he was the actual controller of the robbed Tether. Thus, Wang Qiang's actions violated Deng Gang's personal rights and control over the virtual currency, as well as Deng Dawei's property ownership, fitting the characteristics of robbery.
In the prosecutor's view, when the victim Deng Dawei disposed of the virtual currency, he was unaware that Deng Gang was being held hostage, nor was he compelled by fear to hand it over; therefore, determining that the defendant constituted extortion is a qualitative error.
So, after the incident, how can it be determined that Wang Qiang only liquidated a small portion of the Tether?
In this regard, the prosecutor believed that Wang Qiang was able to transfer 2,500 Tether from the account for cash, which sufficiently proves that the account was under Wang Qiang's actual control or at least jointly controlled with others. From the moment the Tether detached from Deng Dawei's control and entered Wang Qiang's designated account, Wang Qiang's robbery had been completed; subsequent usage of the account or transfer of virtual currency out of it did not affect the establishment of the prior completed crime.
"The difference between robbery and extortion lies in the methods, content, means, degree of violence, and the timeframe of the theft. Wang Qiang's actions fit the criminal characteristics of 'using violence on the spot to rob property.'" In response to the contentious points, the prosecuting attorney proposed precise appeal opinions.
In March of this year, the second trial court held a hearing for this case, where the prosecutor and defense counsel had a fierce debate in court regarding the nature of the crime. This time, the second trial court fully adopted the appeal agency's accusations, determining that the appellant Wang Qiang, with the aim of illegal possession, used violence and coercion to rob others of property worth over 290,000 yuan, constituting a serious crime of robbery. Ultimately, the court made the aforementioned final judgment and ordered Wang Qiang to return 290,000 yuan in illegal gains to the victim.
