TechFlow News — According to the official website, on December 5, the People's Court Daily published an article titled "Criminal Legal Characterization of Illegally Stealing Virtual Currency." The case background indicates that several defendants conspired to steal USDT by exploiting smart contract codes, illegally obtaining a total of 57,307.11 USDT from victim Hu.
Regarding this case, the People's Court Daily analyzed that the defendants’ conduct simultaneously breaches the crime of illegally acquiring computer system data and the crime of theft; however, this case should be classified as theft.
According to relevant regulations, whether something is protected by law does not necessarily correlate with whether it possesses property attributes. While existing regulations only deny virtual currency’s status as legal tender, they do not negate its property attributes. As economic assets, items must possess value, including utility, scarcity, and controllability.
Scarcity is reflected in the fact that the total supply of virtual currency is fixed and not infinitely available.
Controllability is demonstrated through the use of asymmetric encryption technology: virtual currencies exist within a “wallet” (i.e., address), and whoever holds the address and private key can control the virtual currency.
Utility lies in the fact that virtual currencies, as specific data strings, can only be generated through “mining,” which embodies socially abstracted labor.
In real life, virtual currencies can be transferred and traded, yielding quantifiable economic returns, thus possessing both use value and exchange value. Therefore, virtual currencies possess property attributes, and the act of stealing virtual currency constitutes the crime of theft.
