The theft of encryption assets has sparked controversies over judicial classification.

Recently, a theft case involving millions of encryption coins has attracted widespread attention. In this case, a former employee of a wallet platform took advantage of their position to illegally obtain private keys by implanting a "backdoor" program in users' wallets, ultimately resulting in the theft of a user's encryption assets worth millions.

The uniqueness of this case lies in the fact that it actually involves two interrelated cases. First, three former employees illegally obtained a large number of users' private keys and mnemonics through technical means, but claimed that they had not yet used this information. Second, another former employee actually stole the victim's encryption assets using similar methods.

The handling of the case has sparked some controversy. All four defendants were sentenced to three years in prison for the crime of illegally obtaining data from a computer information system, but there are differing views on whether this conviction is appropriate. The focus of the controversy lies in the legal nature of encryption assets.

Currently, there are two completely different views on the classification of encryption assets in judicial practice. One view holds that encryption assets do not belong to the traditional sense of "property" and should be regarded as a form of data. The other view believes that encryption assets possess the core attributes of property and should be included in the scope of protection against property crimes.

In recent years, with the advancement of technology and the evolution of judicial concepts, an increasing number of case laws have essentially recognized the property attributes of encryption assets. For example, some cases explicitly point out that virtual currency has property attributes in the sense of criminal law and can become the subject of property crimes.

There are views that the criminal behavior in this case is more suitable for conviction and punishment under the crime of embezzlement. The reason is that the defendant used their position to illegally occupy user assets entrusted to the platform, which meets the constitutive requirements of the crime of embezzlement. Moreover, the sentencing range for embezzlement is wider, allowing for a more accurate reflection of the severity of the criminal behavior.

This case highlights the discrepancies in our country's legal categorization of encryption assets and reflects the limitations of the existing legal system in addressing the challenges posed by emerging technologies. As blockchain technology and the encryption asset market continue to evolve, how the law keeps pace and more accurately defines the legal attributes of encryption assets, providing clear and unified guidance for judicial practice, will be an issue worth paying attention to.