From January 12th to 13th, the Central Political and Legal Work Conference was held in Beijing. On the 14th, the "Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission Chang'anjian" public account released a meeting notice, in which the chapter "Promoting comprehensive rule of law and striving to build a higher level of rule of law" mentioned: launching research and demonstration on the Detention Center Law, Forensic Appraisal Law, etc. The Ministry of Justice should proactively study and put forward legislative suggestions for key areas, emerging areas, and foreign-related areas. For example, we need to study new issues such as driverless driving, low-altitude economy, artificial intelligence, virtual currency, and data ownership.

I have read many articles that believe that the so-called legislative proposals may be related to virtual currencies. On issues such as the legal nature of effect. The Ministry of Justice has many functions, but the ones related to virtual currencies are mainly forensic identification. I personally believe that the legislative proposals studied and put forward by the Ministry of Justice must be based solely on its own functional positioning, and it is absolutely impossible to go beyond its own responsibilities to do what the two, high, one, and even the central bank and other financial departments should do.

Second, this meeting is the Central Political and Legal Work Conference, which is a meeting led by the higher-level departments of the Public Security Bureau, Procuratorate, Legal Affairs and Departments. The notification of such a meeting usually does not reflect the specific departments at the lower level. You can see Taking a look at this notice, except for the mention of "Ministry of Justice", there are no expressions such as "public security department", "people's procuratorate", "people's court", etc. in the rest of the content. If I have to guess why, I think Could it be a proofreading problem? The words "Ministry of Justice want" have been removed, which is more in line with the format of the report. People who have worked within the system should have a better understanding of this. Of course, if these words are removed, people in the industry may have more room for imagination.

Third, some of the content in the context has nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice, such as the "Detention Center Law". The 2017 draft for comments has made it clear that there are still Public security takes the lead, and other examples include "revising the People's Police Law, Road Traffic Safety Law, and Public Security Management Punishment Law," etc., which are not within the scope of the Ministry of Justice's functions. Therefore, since it has been emphasized above that what the Ministry of Justice should do, it must be limited to its functional scope.

Writing this, I really feel that there are some small flaws in the proofreading?

Back to what I just said, if it is judicialThe Ministry of Judicial Appraisal Law Research and Analysis, the content involves the specific judicial appraisal of virtual currencies, which is in line with the current status of judicial practice and is also an urgent problem that needs to be resolved. In cases involving virtual currencies, it has dual attributes. On the one hand, it belongs to the type of electronic data. As evidence, it can be judged. Wait, it does not belong to the scope of judicial appraisal. However, in practice, the identification of the crime of invasion of wealth involves the value geometry of virtual currency involved in the case, and the point of view of both parties is inconsistent. Judicial appraisal is often determined by the value of virtual currency. This is essentially not in compliance with the relevant provisions of judicial identification. It is hoped that the Ministry of Justice can solve the problems in practice in practice on the research on the judicial appraisal law and the legislative suggestion of the virtual currency.

Finally, in 2025, the Supreme People's Court and some local high courts have surveyed virtual currency disposal as topics, combined with my recent meeting, forums, etc. Still adhere to the previous view that the breakthrough of virtual currencies in legal practice is likely to try first from judicial disposal. Whether the legal attributes of virtual currencies are data or property. To recognize the legitimate transaction of virtual currencies, I think there is no condition at all at this stage. Judging from the 2024 criminal situation reported by the judicial notification for a while, the use of virtual currency exchange and money laundering has been mentioned. Crime, next year, is facing FATF's assessment. I really can't think of any reason to let go of virtual currency transactions.