BlockBeats News, December 14th. The Justice Network under the People's Procuratorate Daily of the Supreme People's Procuratorate of China published an article titled "Establishing a Multi-Faceted Judicial Disposal Path for Criminal Virtual Currency Cases," exploring three disposal measures: "liquidation, destruction, return." The author of this article is a member of the Party Committee of the Third Division of the Beijing People's Procuratorate, a first-level researcher, a professor and doctoral supervisor at the Law School of Capital University of Economics and Business, and a research assistant at the Anti-Corruption and Rule of Law Research Center of Capital University of Economics and Business. The article points out: First, clarify the legal status and role positioning of third-party institutions. Under the current legal framework, third-party institutions lack clear legal authorization to participate in the disposal of criminal assets. In future legislation, through the authorization framework of a special procedure for the disposal of criminal assets, third-party institutions can be included in the category of judicial auction assistants and endowed with the exclusive qualification of "one-time, targeted, non-public bidding." This role positioning not only clarifies the auxiliary status of third-party institutions but also limits their scope of participation, avoiding the risks of rent-seeking and market abuse. Second, establish a dual system of technical standards and procedural norms. To ensure the compliance and transparency of the disposal process, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Procuratorate can jointly issue dual technical and procedural standards in conjunction with financial regulatory authorities. In terms of technical standards, qualifications for auction platforms can be specified, including blockchain technology capabilities, data security guarantees, etc.; in terms of procedural standards, pricing evaluation methods can be standardized, requiring the use of the average price in the 20 days before the transaction date or the victims' acquisition cost as a benchmark to avoid subjective pricing; at the same time, a unified on-chain evidence format can be established to ensure traceability of the virtual currency circulation path; in terms of fund clearing paths, proceeds from liquidation can be required to be directly transferred to a dedicated treasury account without going through any third-party intermediary accounts, eliminating the channel for fund recycling for speculative trading. Third, strengthen the full-process connection between procuratorial supervision and rights protection. Supervision of the disposal process is crucial. Procuratorial organs can participate in the disposal process throughout and carry out dynamic supervision. Specifically, procuratorial organs may require third-party institutions to regularly submit disposal progress reports, including on-chain tracking records, bidding processes, fund transfer vouchers, etc.; at the same time, they can establish rights notification and objection mechanisms to ensure that the persons involved in the case and bona fide third parties can promptly understand the disposal situation and raise objections. For objections, expert opinions can be organized or independent institutions can be commissioned for review to ensure the fairness of the disposal results. Fourth, explore differentiated disposal models to meet diverse needs. The disposal needs of criminal virtual currency cases are diverse. In the future, differentiated disposal models can be explored, using the principle of proportionality as a benchmark, and differentiating the application of the three disposal measures: liquidation, destruction, return. For cases involving the return of property to victims, a targeted auction liquidation model can be prioritized to ensure full reimbursement of the proceeds, for example, for stablecoins that victims have not yet redeemed after being defrauded. If they are willing to return the original coins, they can be directly returned under specified conditions to avoid exchange rate losses. For cases involving the confiscation of prohibited items, a destruction or technical sequestration model can be adopted to prevent re-entry into the market, for example, for tokens specifically used for Ponzi schemes or gambling, where low liquidity and insufficient market depth may devalue them, they can be lawfully destroyed, with the destruction record stated in the judgment document. For high-value coins where criminal proceeds have been mixed with legitimate investments, liquidation should be prioritized to maximize the recovery of losses. In addition, for cases involving small amounts or cases with technical tracking difficulties, simplified disposal procedures can be explored, such as a comprehensive identification model, that is, in cases where the circulation path cannot be completely traced, the value and ownership of the virtual currency involved can be identified based on relevant evidence. Procuratorial organs can convene a hearing before prosecution, listen to the opinions of victims, defense counsel, and financial regulatory representatives, and consider the type of currency, market value, victim demands, and financial security in an integrated manner, selecting the disposal method that minimizes harm to the parties involved, has the least impact on financial order, and is most effective in combating crime.