Yang Dong, Honorary Professor and Ph.D. Supervisor at the School of Law of Zhejiang Gongshang University, Research Fellow of the Metaverse Research Center of Renmin University of China

　　Abstract

　　　Cryptocurrency, NFTs, and other metaverse digital assets have become the blood of the metaverse economic system, bringing about a big explosion and development of the economy and industry while also posing risks such as new types of digital asset-related crimes. Currently, there is a controversy in theory about the criminal attributes of metaverse digital assets, with the ‘data theory’ and ‘property theory’. In judicial practice, there are also situations of confusion between traditional virtual property and the essential characteristics of metaverse digital assets, inconsistent identification of the property attributes of metaverse digital assets, and thus causing practical problems such as different judgments in the same case and difficulty in evaluating property losses. The definition of the criminal attributes of metaverse digital assets should break away from the traditional single evaluation system of computer crimes, combine its characteristics of scarcity, exclusivity, and exclusivity, and interpret metaverse digital assets as property in criminal law. Following the laws of the digital economy, using the ‘platform-data-algorithm’ analysis paradigm to analyze the constituent elements of digital crimes with digital assets as the core, forming a ‘chain governance chain’ judicial system architecture based on the ‘blockchain’ principle, preventing new types of digital financial crime risks, creating a good judicial environment for the prevention and control of digital crimes, and finally reconstructing the regulatory paradigm of criminal law for metaverse digital assets.

　　I. The Proposal of the Problem

　　　The report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China points out, ‘All types of financial activities shall be included in the supervision in accordance with the law, and the bottom line of not occurring systemic risks shall be maintained.’ Currently, human society has entered the digital civilization from the industrial civilization. The production mode, lifestyle, and social organization model of the industrial revolution era are undergoing reconstruction. The digital economy, which takes data as the key production factor, has also promoted the disruptive transformation of the production relations of the industrial era. Currently, the cultivation of the data element market is an important task for the development of the digital economy. In recent years, the emerging digital law has begun to explore new legal relationships of data subjects and objects, such as artificial intelligence and algorithmic discrimination. The metaverse, as a new scenario of digital economic development, has promoted the greater realization of data value. Against this backdrop, industrial clusters represented by blockchain technology are flourishing, and digital assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and NFTs have emerged in the metaverse (hereinafter referred to as ‘digital assets’), becoming the cornerstone of the metaverse economic system. The metaverse is a digital ecosystem gradually integrated by various technologies, with blockchain as the underlying technology, VR (Virtual Reality, virtual reality), AR (Augmented Reality, augmented reality) as entry technologies, and artificial intelligence, big data, cloud computing as supporting technologies. It realizes the full digitalization of entities, behaviors, industries, economy, society, and governance, reconstructs the data traffic entry and the social and economic structure, and forms a ‘data earth’ based on the four-dimensional space of identity, organization, behavior, and assets, and a new form of human civilization. It has achieved the leap of human society from the industrial civilization to the digital civilization. Its essence is the re-creation of the industrial economy and industrial society, forming a digital twin space based on blockchain that transcends space, region, and nationality, interacts and integrates with the physical world, and realizes the harmonious coexistence of human and nature, as well as the integration of material civilization and spiritual civilization in a human destiny community and a ‘digital earth’. Currently, due to the fact that the legal relationships of subjects, objects, and behaviors in the industrial revolution era cannot fully cover the new problems emerging in the digital economy, there are certain gaps in the legal governance of the metaverse in both theory and practice, which in turn triggers a series of financial compliance risks and even criminal risks.

　　　Currently, the determination of the legal status of digital assets abroad varies greatly due to the differences in legal traditions among countries. In countries such as the United Kingdom, which follow the common law system, the property attributes of digital assets have begun to be recognized to a certain extent in relevant legal documents, and are beginning to be applied as property in the confiscation procedures of criminal proceeds from criminal offenses. In countries such as Japan, which adhere to the legal tradition of ‘every thing must have a physical form’, digital assets mainly represented by encrypted currencies are considered intangible due to their external form as data and cannot be identified as ‘things’ in criminal law. However, there is no legal obstacle to their protection and regulation as ‘property interests’ under criminal law, and they have also been applied in practice.

　　　Under the current legal framework of our country, the legal status of digital assets in criminal law is undecided. Traditional criminal law theory believes that they should be regarded as ‘computer information system data’ and regulated for related behaviors from the perspective of maintaining the security of computer information systems. However, this identification method cannot evaluate the property attributes brought by the blockchain technology’s transcending the traditional data ownership mechanism, which leads to the phenomenon of ‘different judgments for the same case’ in practical cases related to digital asset-related criminal behaviors; there are significant compliance risks in the identification of the amount of digital assets, judicial disposal, and recovery of stolen assets; and the difficulty in determining the nature of new digital asset financial crimes, which bring a significant impact on the traditional criminal law regulatory system. In addition, with the issuance of the ‘Notice on Further Preventing and Handling the Risks of Online Casino and How to Find It Trading Speculation’ by the People’s Bank of China and other ten departments in 2021, related business activities of encrypted currencies are stipulated as illegal financial activities, and related encrypted currency intermediary trading platforms have exited the Chinese market. If the property attributes of digital assets are recognized in judicial judgments, it will lead to significant compliance risks and regulatory blind spots in the value identification and judicial disposal links. Therefore, the risks of new financial crimes related to digital assets are increasing, and there is a significant tendency to ignore the identification of the property attributes of metaverse digital assets in the practice of criminal law of financial crimes, and the problem of the existing computer information system charges being unable to effectively protect data elements is very prominent. Currently, the key issue facing the determination of the criminal attributes of digital assets is whether digital assets can be regarded as traditional tangible property and protected as ‘property’ in criminal law? And the key to solving the above problems lies in clarifying whether digital assets meet the essential characteristics of property.

　　　In essence, clarifying the criminal attributes of digital assets and clarifying the mapping relationship between digital assets and underlying assets actually involves how to understand the relationship between digital law and traditional law, as well as the reconstruction of the research paradigm of digital criminal law in the era of the digital economy. This article takes the definition of the criminal attributes of metaverse digital assets as the perspective, combines blockchain and other information technologies, the current development of industrial clusters, and starts from the needs of data element circulation and income distribution, constructs a research path and paradigm of digital criminal law based on China’s independent knowledge system, proposes the ‘platform-data-algorithm’ analysis paradigm in the analysis of new types of digital crimes with digital assets as the core, and explores the construction of a judicial system architecture based on the principle of ‘chain governance’, effectively prevents and resolves risks such as financial crimes faced by the digital economy, establishes a data-based incentive-compatible institutional system, and improves the supporting system of market-oriented allocation of data elements, in order to answer the questions of the times and China with the theory of digital crime governance rooted in China, and achieve the reconstruction of the regulatory paradigm of digital asset criminal law in the metaverse.

　　Second, data or property: theoretical debate and judicial application

　　(I) Clarification of relevant concepts of metaverse digital assets

　　　1. The relationship between network virtual property and digital assets

　　　The concept of network virtual property is a higher-level concept of metaverse digital assets. The concept of network virtual property emerged in the early 21st century during the Web2.0 era. It is generally believed in China that network virtual property refers to a kind of property with economic value that exists in cyberspace and is manifested in the form of electromagnetic data. However, this concept mainly refers to virtual goods such as items and in-game currencies in online games. In the Web3.0 era, with the maturity of blockchain technology, the emergence of new industries such as Bitcoin lottery and how to find it, and digital collectibles, smart contracts and consensus mechanisms have added decentralized, tamper-proof, and anonymous features to digital assets. The traditional centralized characteristics of network virtual property can no longer cover these new industries, thus giving rise to a new category of assets – metaverse digital assets.

　　　因此，数据、网络虚拟财产、元宇宙数字资产在范围上是逐渐缩小的。本文讨论的元宇宙数字资产在实践中亦常被称为“加密数字资产”，是一种存在于网络虚拟空间之内，具有价值支撑的权益凭证。例如加密货币、稳定币等，近年来NFT（Non Fungible Token）、NFC（Non Fungible Coken）等具有非同质化特征的数字资产开始得到越来越多的关注。而法定lottery and How to find it 与现钞的定位与性质一致，不属于本文讨论的元宇宙数字资产的范畴。

　　　2.数字资产的主要类型

　　　世界银行将加密货币界定为一种使用分布式账本技术达成共识的lottery and How to find it 。实践中，加密货币种类繁多，根据国际加密货币交易平台CoinMarket Cap统计，截止到2022年10月，加密货币种类高达9401种，其中，交易价格全球排名前三名的分别为：比特币、以太币、币安币。加密货币是区块链技术最成功的应用，其中以比特币影响最为广泛，但多年来，比特币等Online casino and How to find it 价格频频暴涨暴跌，Online casino and How to find it 交易炒作带来的非法金融活动风险甚至引发了对Online casino and How to find it 本身合法性的质疑。目前，关于Online casino and How to find it 的法律地位尚未明确，根据我国央行等相关部门出台的文件精神，Online casino and How to find it 相关业务活动属于非法金融活动，但Online casino and How to find it 本身尚未被法律禁止，其不属于货币，而是作为一种具有投资风险的虚拟商品被持有。

　　　In addition, there has emerged a type of ‘aircoin’ issued through the concept of Online casino and How to find it for speculation. Although some ‘aircoins’ have also carried out on-chain operations, they do not have a supporting real project and do not have value, so they are not true cryptocurrencies.

　　　Stablecoins are a type of digital asset. Due to their usual anchoring on the reference value of fiat currencies such as the US dollar or other stable reserve assets, they have asset support and were once believed to avoid the defects of traditional online casinos without asset support and high value fluctuations. USDT (Tether) was once the largest stablecoin in terms of market size and trading volume, but the collapse of the stablecoin TerraUSD (UST) (an algorithmic stablecoin) and its associated LUNA coin in May 2022, as well as the subsequent sharp decline in cryptocurrency prices, indicate that the current stable mechanism of stablecoins cannot effectively play a role in maintaining value stability.

　　　As an important infrastructure in the metaverse, NFT (Non Fungible Token) has the function of value anchoring through the technical power of blockchain. Based on this technology, NFT contains corresponding rules and value, with non-replicable and non-divisible characteristics. NFT can prove the authenticity and ownership in the block network in a verifiable manner. For example, collectibles, game items, digital art, event tickets, domain names, and even the ownership records of physical assets. Therefore, NFT can both mark assets and serve as a certificate, realizing the materialization of rights in the metaverse and further facilitating the transaction and circulation of data interests.

　　　Currently, in practice, NFT is often translated as ‘Non-Fungible Token’, which is actually inappropriate. NFT is a type of equity certificate that depends on existing blockchain, using smart contracts for ledger recording. It has features such as indivisibility, irreplaceability, and uniqueness, and is used to verify the authenticity or ownership of specific digital assets, with uniqueness. Therefore, NFT cannot become a general equivalent or a unified accounting unit, and cannot be circulated as currency or token. Therefore, NFT is essentially a non-fungible equity certificate, rather than a token.

　　　The new economic system of the metaverse based on digital assets such as lottery and How to find it, NFT, etc., is completely different from the financial and economic forms of human society. The insufficient supply of effective and real-time supervision systems has triggered a series of financial problems, even financial crime risks. Among them, to further realize the discovery of data value and promote data sharing, it is necessary to have a matching incentive mechanismonline casino entry method and Latest. Based on this, it should be combined with the ‘co票 (Coken) mechanism’, that is, NFC (Non Fungible Coken). ‘Co票’ refers to the realization of shared new rights and interests on the blockchain through crowdfunding systems, which not only represents the inheritance of ‘Token’ but also represents the correct development direction of blockchain. ‘Co票’ has the functions of sharing the growth dividend based on contributions, the functions of circulation and consumption, and the functions of rights proof, and is a mechanism and means for aggregating system consensus. ‘Co票’ can serve as the consideration for the public to create data, enabling the public to share the dividends brought by data according to their contributions, thereby actively and proactively participating in data sharing. NFC, by embedding the co票 mechanism into NFT and other digital assets of the metaverse, can effectively respond to the issues such as ‘free-riding’, moral hazard, and adverse selection that arise after the emergence of new relationships of rights and obligations in the digital civilization. On the one hand, it empowers data through blockchain technology, and on the other hand, it motivates contributors to participate in sharing dividends, better promoting the integration and coordinated development of the virtual and real economy of the metaverse.

　　Theoretical Controversy in the Definition of the Criminal Attributes of Digital Assets

　　　After entering the digital age, the theoretical analysis paradigm of the ‘bundle of rights’ theory of data property has been increasingly used to explain the rights subject of data, which aggregates multiple claims of interests. It can be said that the property rights of data have long been recognized in the theory of civil law in our country. Some opinions hold that criminal law can only adjust the property in the physical world, digital assets belong to the property in the virtual world, and the interests generated can be adjusted by civil law, but do not belong to the scope of adjustment by criminal law. This view believes that criminal law can only indirectly protect the digital assets of the metaverse by protecting the code data of constructing digital assets, and the property interests generated by digital assets need to be protected and regulated by civil law. It is undeniable that criminal law and civil law belong to the antecedent law and subsequent law in the legal order, and there is no intrinsic contradiction between them. Starting from the normative premise of the unity of the legal order, although the antecedent law does not have a completely decisive impact on the定性 of crimes, there should be no intrinsic contradiction between the two. Although the identification of crimes cannot be completely拘泥于 the ‘antecedent law determination, criminal law quantity’ mindset, but also must take into account the basic attitude of the antecedent law. The norms of civil law and criminal law for the property rights of data cannot exist intrinsic contradictions. In the trend of recognizing and protecting the property rights of data under civil law, the criminal law should also take into account the position of civil law when determining the nature of digital assets with property attributes in the metaverse.

　　　Currently, the definition of the criminal attributes of digital assets in the criminal law theory mainly has two views: ‘property theory’ and ‘data theory’.

　　　The view of ‘property theory’ believes that virtual property refers to property with property value, existing in the cyberspace in the form of electromagnetic data. Virtual property is a special form of real property. Among them, account type and item type virtual property belong to intangible objects; monetary game property belongs to valuable securities, so they can all be protected as property under criminal law. At the same time, only electromagnetic data with property value or electromagnetic data with exclusive control can be evaluated as the above property, and other data that have reproducibility but not exclusivity cannot be evaluated as property, but can be the carrier of intellectual property rights.

　　　The view of ‘data theory’ believes that network virtual property is actually electronic data or electromagnetic records of computer information systems, and the act of stealing network virtual property is essentially the act of stealing electronic data, which can cause great harm to the operation of the entire computer information system. The behavior of obtaining network virtual property illegally should be charged with the crime of illegal acquisition of electronic data or electromagnetic records, and should not be protected as traditional property.

　　　However, in fact, there is an essential difference between network virtual property and metaverse digital assets. In traditional games, the virtual assets owned by players can only be stored on the servers of the operators and can only be used in the corresponding games, which cannot realize the liquidity of assets, let alone achieve circulation with physical assets. In blockchain games, through blockchain technology, the assets in the game are NFTized, stored on the chain, and players can own the ownership of the assets.

　　　Regarding the criminal attributes of ‘lottery and How to find it’, a mainstream digital asset, the theoretical community has carried out certain discussions. Currently, there are mainly four views: goods, data, securities, and new types of currency, which provide new perspectives and ideas for defining the criminal attributes of digital assets. Of course, there are also views that believe that the above four theories all have different degrees of theoretical dilemmas – ‘lottery and How to find it’ does not have the value of use, so it cannot become a commodity as an intangible object; the data theory cannot accurately interpret the value of ‘lottery and How to find it’, and when it is qualitatively defined as data in individual cases, it will have the logical defect of being unable to explain the legal interests violated by the infringement behavior; the decentralized technical arrangement of ‘lottery and How to find it’ leads to the absence of the important security role of the issuer, which is contrary to the concept of securities theory. In summary, regarding the criminal attributes of digital assets in the metaverse, the academic community still mainly bases its research on the achievements of the study of network virtual property, and rarely combines the logic of blockchain technology to carry out specific discussions.

　　(Three) Judicial dynamics abroad in the definition of the criminal attributes of digital assets

　　　Currently, research on digital assets, this emerging thing, is in the initial stage in various countries, and is mainly concentrated in the most mature fields such as Bitcoin and online casino. Relevant legal documents and cases in the criminal judicial field of new businesses such as NFT are relatively rare. Research on the judicial status of digital assets in countries such as the UK, South Korea, and Japan shows that with the prominent value attributes of digital assets, more and more countries are beginning to clarify the property nature of digital assets in criminal law to deal with the governance of related crimes related to metaverse digital assets.

　　　According to the provisions of the UK’s ‘1968 Theft Act’ on property, property in criminal law includes money and all other immovable or personal property, including things in motion and other intangible property. In the UK, the property nature of online casino and Bitcoin is倾向于 be recognized in cases of criminal proceeds. For example, the Kingston Crown Court judgment in the case of Rv Bing. Teresko in 2017 and the Southwark Crown Court judgment in the case of Rv Bing. West in August 2019, both determined the property nature of Bitcoin in the criminal proceeds forfeiture procedure by means of a restraining order and an order of forfeiture. The UK Legal Technology Delivery Board’s UK Jurisdiction Task Force issued the ‘Legal Statement on Cryptocurrency and Smart Contracts’ in 2019, which states that the true value of cryptocurrency does not lie in the data that constitutes it, but in the rights of the data holder to trade and authenticate cryptocurrency according to system rules. The data represents the content of these rights, such as personal information, business secrets, etc. Cryptocurrency is just a symbolic code existing in the system that does not convey any data. The document believes that cryptocurrency has property attributes; the novel features of certain cryptocurrencies such as intangibility, encrypted authentication, use of distributed ledgers, decentralization, consensus rules, or their inability to be classified as movable or immovable property do not prevent them from becoming property. Cryptocurrency has also not been disqualified as pure information property. Therefore, cryptocurrency should be regarded as property in principle. Although this legal document is not a binding precedent in the UK, it has been approved for citation by the English courts. It can be seen that in the UK, the property nature of encrypted digital assets has begun to be confirmed in both theory and criminal judicial practice.

　　　In 2021, the Republic of Korea’s ‘Special Financial Information Act’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Special Financial Information Law’) was officially promulgated and implemented, clearly defining the legal attributes of virtual property. Article 2 of the ‘Special Financial Information Law’ stipulates that ‘virtual assets’ refer to electronic certificates with economic value that can be traded or transferred through electronic means (including all rights attached to them). However, there are exclusionary provisions for electronic certificates that do not have value attributes, such as including tangible and intangible achievements obtained from using game items, such as traditional online game props and in-game currency, as well as electronic bills of lading and electronic invoices. The 2017 Lu 7120 judgment handed down by the Suwon District Court in 2018 was the first criminal case in Korea to recognize ‘Online casino and How to find it’ as intangible property. The case involved the issue of whether the Bitcoin proceeds seized from a defendant who operated an adult website and recruited members to watch淫秽 videos by paying with Bitcoin could be seized under the ‘Crime Proceeds Secrecy Prohibition Act’. Since the ‘Crime Proceeds Secrecy Prohibition Act’ of the Republic of Korea only allows for the seizure of criminal proceeds, whether Bitcoin is considered property became a focal point of debate in the courtroom. The first-instance court held that Bitcoin exists in the form of an electronic file without a physical entity and is not property under the ‘Crime Proceeds Secrecy Prohibition Act’, and thus rejected the request to seize the defendant’s Bitcoin. However, the appellate court made a completely different judgment, considering that Bitcoin, utilizing P2P networks and blockchain technology, has its uniqueness in that the storage and approval of transaction records are jointly completed by network participants. Moreover, as Bitcoin operates in the public ledger of blockchain technology, it has the characteristic of non-repudiation. In addition, in Korea, Bitcoin can be exchanged for legal currency at a certain exchange rate through exchanges, serving as a medium for various economic activities, and there are also cases of Bitcoin seizure in different countries such as the United States. Considering that the defendant also obtained Bitcoin from members and exchanged it for cash, returning the Bitcoin to the defendant without seizing it would actually allow the defendant to retain the profits obtained through the operation of the淫秽 website in question. The court ultimately determined that Bitcoin is equivalent to property under the ‘Crime Proceeds Secrecy Prohibition Act’ and thus became an object of seizure. The appellate court’s judgment was also supported by the Supreme Court.

　　　During the amendment of the law in Japan in 2019, ‘Online casino and How to find it’ was renamed to digital assets (i.e., ‘cryptocurrency’, Japanese: 暗号資産), and the concept of digital assets was defined as network assets that adopt cryptographic algorithms, highlighting the attributes of their investment objectsonline and The latest strategy. According to the Japanese Criminal Code, property-related interests can only become the object of property crimes when specifically stipulated by law. According to the judgment of the Mt.Gox case, the Japanese judicial community considers digital assets to be intangible objects and thus cannot be evaluated as property under criminal law. The provisions of Article 235 of the Japanese Criminal Code on the crime of theft only clearly define property as the object of this crime, but does not include property-related interests. Therefore, the act of stealing digital assets is not evaluated as theft in Japan, and many views in China’s criminal law theory and practice hold that the property attributes of digital assets have not been recognized in Japan. However, in fact, according to the provisions of Article 246-2 of the Japanese Criminal Code, the act of issuing false instructions in a computer information system that causes property loss to others constitutes the crime of using an electronic computer to defraud. Therefore, in Japan, the act of sending false instructions through a computer information system to steal or defraud property-related interests is actually punished as the crime of using an electronic computer to defraud. In the 2017 Nagoya robbery and murder case involving Bitcoin, the court held that the perpetrator, with the intention of illegally appropriating the Bitcoin and other property held by the victim, used the password recorded on the note taken from the victim to commit the act of electronic computer use fraud, transferring Bitcoin from the victim’s account to the defendant’s account, obtaining illegal profits in terms of property, and this act constitutes the crime of using an electronic computer to defraud. This indicates that Japan evaluates ‘Online casino and How to find it’ as property-related interests under criminal law. In addition, Article 168-2 and Article 168-3 (added in 2011) of the Special Part of the Japanese Criminal Code on the crime of unauthorized instruction electromagnetic records clearly defines the concept of electromagnetic records, indicating that it refers to computer viruses, which are commonly used in practice for destroying computer information systems, i.e., Trojan programs. In summary, Japan has implemented relatively comprehensive criminal regulations on criminal acts related to digital assets in the metaverse. In Japan, digital assets related to the metaverse are protected as property-related interests under the provisions of the property crime clauses of the Criminal Code. The crime of destroying computer information systems using computer viruses (electromagnetic records) is specially stipulated. In addition, Japan specially establishes the ‘Law on Prohibition of Illegal Access to Information Systems’ to regulate the act of illegally obtaining others’ accounts and passwords for illegal access.

　　(Four) The domestic judicial changes in the definition of the criminal attributes of digital assets

　　　In our country, the identification of the criminal attributes of digital assets has gone through three stages since the Research Office of the Supreme People’s Court issued the ‘Research Opinion on How to Determine the Nature of Illegal Sales and Profit from the Illegal Sale of Others’ Game Currency Using Computers’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opinion’).

　　　The first stage: from 2008 to 2013, focusing on traditional online game currency, props, and other virtual assets. In terms of traditional online game assets, according to the definition of ‘Online casino and How to find it’ by relevant administrative authorities, it refers to a virtual exchange tool issued by online game operators, which is purchased by game users using legal currency at a certain ratio, directly or indirectly, stored in the servers provided by online game operators in the form of electromagnetic records, and represented by a specific digital unit. Its usage scope is limited to exchanging for virtual services provided by the issuing enterprise itself and cannot be used for payment, purchasing physical products, or exchanging any products and services of other enterprises. This indicates that the ‘Online casino and How to find it’ in the domestic industry context at that time was fundamentally different from the current ‘lottery and How to find it’ based on blockchain technology. It is dependent on the server of the network operator and does not have exchange value.

　　　In 2010, the Research Office of the Supreme People’s Court clarified the attributes of in-game currency and proposed that the illegal act of using computers to steal others’ in-game currency for illegal sales and profit should be prosecuted as the crime of illegal acquisition of computer information system data. Subsequently, neither the 2011 ‘Interpretation on the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Endangering the Security of Computer Information Systems’ issued by the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate nor the 2013 ‘Interpretation on the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Theft’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Theft Interpretation’) issued by the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate regulated the act of stealing virtual property as theft nor recognized the property attributes of network virtual property.

　　　However, from the perspective of specific cases, the aforementioned judicial interpretations have not only not played a guiding role in the judgment of specific cases related to crimes related to metaverse digital assets, but have also produced a significant phenomenon of ‘different judgments for the same case.’ For example, in the case of Yue Moumou’s illegal acquisition of computer information system data in 2013, the defendant was identified as having committed the crime of illegal acquisition of computer information system data. At the same time, similar crimes such as the theft case of Meng Moumou in 2005 and the fraud case of Jiang Moumou in 2012 were identified as property crimes.

　　　The second stage: During the period from 2013 to 2021, relevant national departments began to pay attention to the transaction behavior of Online casino and How to find it, but the legislation was still lagging behind. In terms of the criminal attributes of Online casino and How to find it, although Article 127 of the Civil Code stipulates, ‘Where the law provides for the protection of data and network virtual property, it shall be followed,’ it solemnly expresses the attitude of protecting network virtual property. However, at present, there is no relevant judicial interpretation in the field of criminal judicial practice to clarify the concept and nature of Online casino and How to find it and other encrypted assets. Instead, a series of legal documents have been issued by central departments such as the central bank, confirming that Online casino and How to find it does not have monetary attributes, prohibiting the public issuance and financing of Online casino and How to find it, but not prohibiting citizens from holding Online casino and How to find it.

　　　In the field of criminal judicial practice, there are still dual disputes over property and data in the identification of Online casino and How to find it. For example, in the case of Wu Moumou’s theft in 2016, Zhou Moumou, Wang Moumou, and Zhai Moumou’s robbery case in 2020, the judgments of the aforementioned cases all considered Online casino and How to find it as a virtual commodity with property attributes, which should be protected under the Criminal Law. Therefore, the behavior of illegally obtaining Online casino and How to find it was characterized as a property crime; while in the case of Li Moumou’s illegal acquisition of computer information system data in 2019, Meng Moumou and Liu Moumou’s illegal acquisition of computer information system data and illegal control of computer information system data, the court considered Online casino and How to find it to have obvious differences from traditional property and could not be interpreted as ‘public and private property’ under the Criminal Law. Therefore, it identified the physical attributes of Online casino and How to find it, namely computer information system data, as its criminal attributes, and treated the relevant behaviors as illegal acquisition of computer information system data crimes.

　　　The third stage: from 2021 to the present, with the continuous enrichment of metaverse applications, the criminal regulation of new types of digital assets such as stablecoins and NFTs is still blank. Since 2021, the metaverse has provided a richer range of application scenarios for new types of digital assets such as stablecoins and NFTs. As it is still in the early stage of development, the legal definition of the criminal attributes of these assets has not been clearly stated in law, and there are also great controversies in practice. In the field of civil judicial proceedings, there are mainly two completely different positions on stablecoins. One view holds that the property attributes of stablecoins should be recognized, as evidenced by the cases of Zheng Mou and Ke Mou’s entrusted property management contract dispute and Shanghai Jingshi Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen Mou’s private lending dispute, in which the judgments of the two cases both recognized that Tether (USDT) has property attributes and should be protected by law. Another position is that the business of stablecoins belongs to financial institutions’ business activities that require administrative approval, and related activities that have not obtained administrative permits do not fall within the jurisdiction of people’s courts and therefore are not accepted. As for NFTs, in April 2022, the Hangzhou Internet Court made a judgment in the

　　III. Clarification and definition of the criminal attributes of digital assets

　　(I) The evolution of the connotation of ‘property’ in criminal law

　　　In the era of agricultural economy and the period of the Industrial Revolution, the traditional concept of property in criminal law referred to tangible objects, and the criminal laws of countries such as Germany and Japan explicitly stipulated that property is limited to tangible objects. With the development of society, the economic value of many intangible objects has become increasingly prominent, and views such as the possibility of physical management and the possibility of affairs management have emerged, which hold that property is not limited to tangible objects but also includes other objects with the possibility of physical management, including light, heat, and cold air, etc.; the possibility of affairs management holds that intangible property with the possibility of affairs management, such as debts, also belongs to property.

　　　In the Web2.0 era, with the development of information technology, the connotation of property has extended from the real world to cyberspace, and the property attributes of virtual network properties have also begun to be recognized. In our country, intangible property such as game coins, game props, and network domain names have also begun to be protected as property under criminal law in recent years.

　　　In the Web3.0 era, the value of data as a production factor is further highlighted. With the development of blockchain technology, the emergence of the new asset type, metaverse digital assets, and their beginning to become the pillar of the metaverse economic system. Metaverse digital assets are mainly of two types: digital assets (such as NFT) that are supported by blockchain technology and mapped to the digital assets of the real world, and original assets (such as lottery and How to find it) that are born in the virtual world and anchored by blockchain technology, thus having transaction functions. Due to the differences in underlying technology, compared with traditional network virtual property, metaverse digital assets have features such as decentralized transactions, anonymous ownership confirmed by private keys, and transactions broadcasted on the entire network, even achieving cross-chain and cross-platform transactionssports betting online websiteJust need you. Their financial transaction attributes have been greatly enhanced, and as a special data product under the background of data production factors, they have been deeply promoted in applications. In general, metaverse digital assets have obvious property rights proof functions and are a new type of network virtual property with clearer ownership and transaction attributes compared to traditional network virtual property.

　　　In summary, since the beginning of human social division of labor, the connotation of property in criminal law has been continuously enriched, from tangible objects based on natural attributes in the agricultural economy era to currency based on credit attributes and intangible objects based on institutional attributes in the industrial revolution era. Now, with the entry of the digital economy era, the innovation of blockchain technology has brought about a new type of asset, encrypted assets, and the extension of ‘property’ in criminal law is once again challenged by the development of science and technology.

　　(II) The justification of the property nature of digital assets

　　　1. The encryption technology of digital assets has exceeded the characteristics of data.

　　　In the field of criminal law, many opinions are based on the denial of the property nature of network virtual property and metaverse digital assets due to their data attributes. It is undeniable that digital assets are manifested in the form of a series of computer codes in the physical dimension, and these codes have physical attributes as data. Data is reproducible, and after being copied, the replicas are usually indistinguishable from the original, having the same commercial value. Therefore, data can be possessed and used by different people at the same time, thus losing exclusivity. However, it needs to be emphasized that the criminal law attributes point to the essential attributes that distinguish one thing from another, and physical attributes are not equal to essential attributes. For example, the physical attribute of paper money is the paper with extremely low cost, which is a common property, but its essential attribute is legal currency. The crimes committed against paper money not only include property crimes but also include counterfeiting currency crimes and other crimes that destroy the order of financial management. The physical attribute of a trademark is a graphic, which is sometimes also manifested as data in a computer information system, but its essence is an intellectual property right. The acts of misusing others’ trademarks should be characterized as crimes of counterfeiting registered trademarks and other intellectual property rights violations. Therefore, although digital assets are manifested as computer information system data in the physical dimension, it does not affect their possession of other characteristics. It is obviously biased to deny their property nature solely due to the physical characteristics of digital assets.

　　　2. The identification of digital asset property attributes is a supplement and correction to the traditional pure data protection view.

　　　Firstly, the identification of digital asset property attributes is a correction of the misunderstandings of traditional practical views. There is an opinion in the practical circle that when the ‘Criminal Law’ of the Taiwan region of our country was amended in 1997, electromagnetic records were included in movable property and protected as property under the ‘Criminal Law’. However, in 2003, electromagnetic records were again deleted from movable property by amending the ‘Criminal Law’, and the act of stealing electromagnetic records was separately identified as a crime against computer use for handling. This actually negates the position of protecting electromagnetic records as property in the amendment of the ‘Criminal Law’ in 1997. According to the relevant reasons for the change, this amendment mainly considers that electromagnetic records have the nature of reproducibility and do not have the exclusivity of possession, which is essentially different from the movable property as the object of the crime of theft in traditional criminal law. It is more appropriate to regulate it under the crime of hindering computer use. This means that the reason why electromagnetic records cannot be evaluated as property under the criminal law lies in their reproducibility and the inability to achieve exclusive possession. However, the attributes of the digital assets discussed in this article have gone beyond the performance of traditional data. Its revolutionary significance lies in the fact that it promotes the remote point-to-point exchange of intangible rights and interests certificates by imitating the transaction methods of tangible property, and solves the traditional electronic payment problem of ‘double spending’ with blockchain technology. Therefore, digital assets in the metaverse do not have reproducibility and there are no obstacles in being protected as property under the criminal law. In addition, in the Taiwan region of our country, intangible electromagnetic records with property value can also be applied as property interests in fraud and other property crimes. This indicates that intangible property with property value can be protected as property interests under the criminal law, and digital assets as a data asset with property value based on blockchain technology belong to the scope of the above property interests. Therefore, there are no legal obstacles to evaluating digital assets in the metaverse as movable property or property interests in the Taiwan region of our country. The aforementioned practical views are a misinterpretation of the relevant amendment intentions.

　　　Third, the identification of digital asset property attributes is a fundamental solution to the tendency of avoidance in judicial judgments due to objective obstacles. In current criminal judicial practice, there are not a few cases where the property attributes of digital assets are avoided due to obstacles such as the great price fluctuations of digital assets, the lack of value identification standards, and the difficulty of judicial disposal. However, in the judicial process in our country, for value-added tax invoices with fluctuating prices or a lack of unified identification standards, foreign exchange, securities, and other assets, corresponding amount identification standards are stipulated as a substitute in the judicial interpretation when there is a lack of unified identification methods. For example, according to the provisions of the

　　　3. Digital assets conform to the essential characteristics of property in criminal law.

　　　The characteristics of property in criminal law have basically reached a consensus, generally requiring the following three characteristics: first, scarcity; second, exchange value; third, exclusivity and exclusivity. Network virtual property and others often fail to meet the above characteristics due to the reproducibility of data, making it difficult to be identified as property in criminal law. The digital assets of the metaverse are different from traditional network virtual property, as they are a new asset system based on blockchain technology, integrating cryptography, computer science, mathematics, and other interdisciplinary fields. Based on the technical logic of blockchain, the metaverse has the three basic properties of property.
online casino and The latest strategy
　　　Firstly, digital assets have scarcity. The blockchain is a distributed ledger where each participating node can store data, but once the data is on the chain, it is difficult to alter because each node’s data has a ‘timestamp’. This causes any change in the data on a node to be reflected in the data on other nodes, and nodes cannot nor can they deceive other nodes, which means a small number of nodes cannot complete forgery, making it impossible to be arbitrarily copied and provided to a third party, ensuring the authenticity and credibility of the data on the chain and preventing the dilution of asset value due to the reproducibility of data. For example, one NFT may represent Van Gogh’s painting ‘Starry Night’, while another NFT may represent the highly valued avatar ‘Bored Ape’. Different NFTs have their own characteristics, ensuring the guarantee of scarcity.

　　　Secondly, digital assets possess exchange value. Nodes on the blockchain network share algorithms and data, operating independently while consuming their respective computing power, which enables cross-platform distributed nodes. Therefore, digital assets can be traded across platforms, not just virtual assets existing in specific online games, but also with the property of value exchange. For example, NFTs can realize the property attributes of digital assets in the metaverse. NFTs can map virtual assets, making virtual assets into entities of transactions, allowing virtual goods to be assetized, and can also map any data content through links onto the chain, making NFTs the asset entities of data content, thus realizing the value circulation of data content. Through mapping, digital collectibles, game equipment, decorations, and land property rights all have their transaction entities, which means NFTs can not only mark assets but also serve as credentials.

　　　Finally, digital assets have exclusivity and exclusivity. The private key of blockchain technology and the function of the whole system broadcast endow the system with anonymity and openness. For example, in the transaction process of Online casino and How to find it, on the one hand, due to each node in the blockchain system holding its own private key to open its own ‘digital wallet’, each node is anonymous and does not need to trust each other or disclose their identity; on the other hand, although the identity of each node is encrypted, the relevant transaction information is publicly available to the entire network, and any node can view the records in the blockchain timestamp to understand the transaction and circulation of related lottery and How to find it. Therefore, the transaction situation of digital assets is recorded in the public ledger, which avoids the situation of double sale and simultaneous possession, and avoids the double spending problem. Therefore, digital assets fully conform to the basic characteristics of property in criminal law.

　　　In summary, combining the controversies of digital assets in the theory of criminal law and the dilemmas of application in judicial practice, and combining its technical logic and the latest theoretical achievements from abroad to sort out the evolution of the connotation and extension of property in criminal law, it can be seen that traditional criminal law theory and the practice community often treat data assets simply as data and deal with related behaviors as computer crimes, which is a theoretical misconception and a blind spot in practice. Digital assets are a special type of network virtual property, in addition to having basic data attributes, also meet the characteristics of ‘property’ in criminal law and should be defined as property. For behaviors that cause property loss to the right holder by illegally obtaining digital assets, if they constitute a crime, they should be dealt with according to the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Criminal Law on the crime of infringing upon property rights.

　　Four, the paradigm innovation of the criminal law regulation of new types of digital crimes with digital assets as the core

　　　The definition of the criminal attributes of digital assets is not only a fundamental issue of criminal law theory, but also involves the regulation of new types of crimes related to digital technology, such as money laundering tools, platforms involved in fund-raising fraud, illegal public deposit collection, money laundering, and other new types of digital crimes that are highly prevalent today. There are many controversies in the application of law. The governance of digital crimes with digital assets as the core actually belongs to the issue of data security governance. Therefore, from the perspective of the metaverse, the criminal law regulation of digital crimes with digital assets as the core faces paradigm innovation.

　　（一）The PDA Analysis Paradigm for the Criminal Regulation of New Digital Crimes

　　　The digital economy presents a three-dimensional structure of ‘platform-data-algorithm’, where the platform becomes a new legal subject. By using technology such as algorithms to collect and use data, it has formed a new economic organization different from industrial economy on the one hand, and on the other hand, the abuse of private rights by platforms requires moderate intervention based on public law principles and value requirements. Currently, it is still in the hardware construction stage of the metaverse space, and the order rules of the metaverse have not been fully established. There have not yet been complete metaverse space crimes, but the identification of digital crimes with digital assets as the core, which arise from the interaction between the real world and the virtual world, has brought new challenges to the application of traditional criminal law. For example, new criminal methods such as telecommunication network fraud crimes, cross-border gambling crimes, virtual currency pyramid scheme crimes, and money laundering crimes using digital technologies such as blockchain are constantly emerging, which bring great challenges to the investigation of network crimes and the nature of criminal behavior. The prevention and governance of new digital crimes with digital assets as the core is a key content of data security governance. Only by constructing the organizational theory of digital crimes based on the theory of the digital economy can effective governance be achieved. The ‘Platform-Data-Algorithm’ analysis paradigm (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PDA analysis paradigm’) derived from the original digital economy theory of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, conforms to the laws of digital economy operation, and reconstructs the subjective and objective rights and obligations in the digital world from the three dimensions of ‘platform-data-algorithm’. This paradigm can contribute original Chinese paths for the governance of new digital crimes with digital assets as the core in the context of the metaverse (see Figure 1).

　　　Under the background of market-oriented allocation of data elements, data plays a fundamental role in digital crimes. The data interests involved in the relevant behaviors vary, and the nature of the behavior is also different: for behaviors that use Trojan programs and other methods to modify the relevant computer running code, and then implement crawling information from others’ digital accounts, etc., which infringe on the legal interests of computer information network security, should be定性 as computer crimes such as illegal intrusion into computer information systems; for illegal occupation behaviors such as theft and fraud against digital assets such as ‘lottery and How to find it’, which ultimately infringe on the property interests of the rights holders, should be sentenced according to crimes such as theft and fraud, etc., which infringe on property rights; for behaviors such as using digital assets as a hook to诱使 others to invest in ‘Online casino and How to find it’, and illegally absorbing others’ funds, etc., which disturb the financial order, should be sentenced according to crimes such as illegal fund-raising, illegal public deposit collection, and organizing and leading pyramid schemes; and for behaviors such as unauthorized copying and issuing others’ published NFTs and other intellectual property rights achievements without the permission of the rights holder, should be evaluated as intellectual property crimes.

　　　Digital assets are essentially data breaking through the limitations of time and space through algorithmic technology. Data, through user profiling and other algorithmic behaviors, plays the role of a refining mill, transforming traffic into a form suitable for industrial development and releasing data interests to a greater extent. The most common criminal acts in practice, such as modifying domain names through technical means or stealing the balance in others’ accounts by modifying computer instructions, indicate that algorithms have already become a means of crime. With the development of artificial intelligence technology, the legal and technological, and ethical dilemmas it raises also bring new challenges to the interpretation and application of criminal law, in addition to the determination of the criminal attributes of digital assets in the metaverse. There are also basic issues to be solved, such as the determination of the legal status of virtual digital people in the metaverse, the illegal acquisition of citizens’ personal information through algorithmic black boxes for preference analysis, and its use in implementing telecommunications network fraud crimes, etc.

　　　Digital assets are the blood of the metaverse. Platforms are the infrastructure of the digital economy. The digital economy drives platforms to shift from price competition to competition based on data (traffic) value. Traffic is the expression of users’ attention, and since the time users spend on platforms is limited, this attention is scarce. As a huge data traffic entrance, platforms, under the three-dimensional structure of ‘platform-data-algorithm’, control data through algorithms, providing functions such as information retrieval, content release, and bidding, and have formed new organizational rules. On the one hand, the development of the digital economy promotes the further development and expansion of platforms, and how to balance the relationship between platforms and users, freedom, and rights protection is a key premise for deepening platform governance. Therefore, platforms may become the subject of crime due to their obligations to maintain network security, such as helping information network crime activities. On the other hand, platforms may also become the object and tool of crime, for example, in the case of virtual currency transactions on virtual currency trading platforms being stolen by hackers, the platform actually becomes the victim of related digital crimes or becomes the tool of related digital crimes based on the services it provides. As a provider of many digital economy scenarios, the metaverse is a ‘platform of platforms’, with ‘decentralization’ as its core feature. Compared with traditional centralized platforms, its mode of organizational collaboration has undergone fundamental changes, bringing about changes in the patterns of digital crime behavior, the subjects of responsibility, and the objects. For example, according to the tamper-proof and interoperable nature of blockchain technology, each platform is just a node on the blockchain. When data on one platform is tampered with, it will notify other platforms in the form of broadcasting, and after confirmation, the changes to the data of each platform will be realized, thereby bringing about the determination of the criminal responsibility subject and the issues of retrieving and identifying electronic data. For example, in the metaverse, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO, Decentralized Autonomous Organization) adapt to blockchain technology and have core attributes such as distribution, autonomy, and flat openness, which bring a shock to the traditional organizational management form and legal system based on the company system, and also bring new challenges to the identification of related platform responsibilities.

　　　Properly addressing the criminal law regulation of the new digital crime characterized by digital assets, especially financial crime, requires a correct handling of the relationships among platforms, data, and algorithms. There is a tripartite integration of data security, data protection, and data utilization value among platforms, data, and algorithms. Based on existing laws and regulations, platform data governance needs to focus on data security, emphasizing the equal importance of data protection and data utilization to achieve a balance between privacy protection and the market-oriented allocation of data, ultimately increasing the overall welfare of society rather than emphasizing only one-sided value. In form, platforms control data through algorithms, and the governance of platforms cannot be separated from the governance of algorithms and data. From the perspective of crime governance, platforms, data, and algorithms respectively belong to the subjects, objects, and constituent elements of behavior in digital crimes. They are indispensable for the identification of digital crimes, and therefore, the governance of crimes must also start from these three aspects. Therefore, it is not advisable to treat platforms, data, and algorithms separately when applying the PDA analysis paradigm to solve the problem of digital crime in the metaverse centered around digital assets. Instead, it should conform to the coupled relationship among the three, and comprehensive planning should be made to accurately define digital crimes and properly regulate them.

　　(II) The ‘Judicial Chain’ Paradigm for the Criminal Regulation of New Types of Digital Crimes

　　　The two major issues of difficulty in pricing and handling, which are based on the data attributes of digital assets, are the biggest obstacles in front of the determination of their property attributes. With the continuous emergence of new types of digital crimes, especially financial crimes, around digital assets, the technical characteristics of blockchain technology such as anonymous transactions within the chain, fragmented identities between chains, highly heterogeneous among chain groups, and difficulties in collaborative governance between on-chain and off-chain have led to significant difficulties in the investigation of related facts and the identification of behavioral nature by judicial departments. The root cause lies in insufficient front-end data governance and current deficiencies in the informatization, sharing, and judicial capabilities of law enforcement and judicial practices. Informatization, intelligence, and automation are the main trends of contemporary judicial development. Therefore, it is possible to solve this problem through a technology-driven judicial system based on ‘Blockchain + Justice = Judicial Chain (JudiChain)’. Through a real-time and transparent blockchain accounting system, judicial authorities can timely identify potential illegal risks and respond to them in a timely manner, and even embed compliance mechanisms directly into smart contracts, where codes can analyze and calculate massive data, automatically executing judicial instructions. Based on this, a new paradigm of data security governance for an inclusive cluster of new industrial technologies can be established, effectively preventing and controlling crimes related to digital assets.

　　　For the judicial aspect of smart contracts on the blockchain, it is necessary to incorporate technological support to achieve the codification of judicial rules, but since the system itself is designed by humans, the possibility of subjective factors being embedded in the code design cannot be completely excluded. In fact, the risk of data damage or manipulation due to network attacks is a real concern for blockchain, and therefore, relying solely on algorithms for judicial application of blockchain smart contracts is not enough. It is necessary to introduce an integrated judicial path of ‘Blockchain + Justice = Judicial Chain (JudiChain)’ into the judicial system. Under the principle of ‘Judicial Chain’, the judicial system architecture of ‘chain governance of chain’ (as shown in Figure 2) is constructed, based on the smart contract mechanism of the blockchain. By utilizing the blockchain to achieve ‘integration of law into chain’ and ‘agile justice’, it changes the traditional fragmentation problem of judicial administration, forming a two-dimensional, two-level, and collaborative judicial system of both on-chain and off-chain ‘chain governance of chain’. It adopts a penetrating judicial approach to achieve the transformation from manual justice to intelligent justice, and analyzes judicial data through the judicial chain to predict risks of digital asset-related financial crimes and other digital crimes. Based on the ‘chain governance of chain’ judicial system composed of judicial officials, chain access, and judicial chain judicial processes, a new judicial model is constructed with blockchain as the basic tool, data as the core element, and adjusting the legal relationship between judicial organs and other legal entities. Through this judicial system architecture, data security, data protection, and data utilization can be realized from three dimensions: the management obligations of the platform, the security of data structures, and the technical nature of algorithms. This creates a favorable judicial environment for the prevention and control of digital crimes.

　　(3) Research Path of Digital Criminal Law – Constructing an Independent Knowledge System of China

　　　In the era of the digital economy, the development of digital technology not only poses great difficulties to the interpretation of the attribute of data rights based on the traditional dichotomy system of material and debt in civil law, but also brings considerable difficulties to the identification of the criminal attributes of network virtual property. As a part of network virtual property, the identification of the criminal attributes of metaverse digital assets and the research and governance of related digital crimes with digital assets as the core are actually the reconstruction of the research paradigm of criminal law in the digital age.

　　　The reconstruction of the research paradigm of digital criminal law should explore the establishment of new theories in emerging fields where traditional law cannot cover, and also reexplain the areas that traditional law can accommodate. Digital criminal law is an important branch of digital law, which adjusts the digital social relationships around the ‘dynamic digital self’: legal subjects shuttle online and offline; digital behavior presents and operates in digital logic; the new type of metaverse with higher openness, participation, and immersion has arrived. The COVID-19 pandemic, which has affected the whole world, has accelerated the comprehensive transformation and development of human society from the Industrial Revolution to the Digital Revolution, from industrial economy to digital economy, and from industrial civilization to digital civilization.

　　　Just as the view of data protection of digital assets is facing huge challenges and the necessity of reconstruction in the current theoretical practice, the unidimensional view of data protection in traditional criminal law has been unable to adapt to the realistic needs of legal order construction and data security governance brought about by the outbreak of industrial clusters driven by technologies such as blockchain in the context of the current digital economy. Therefore, based on the overall strategic layout of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the great changes unseen in a century, it is necessary to build a unified modern knowledge system based on China’s practice. The digital criminal law should construct an autonomous framework of a new knowledge system with four integrations: human as the core, including technology, organization, behavior, and governance. Blockchain technology has changed the way of credit creation through power transfer, establishing trust between machines based on consensus algorithms, thus creating credit through technical endorsement rather than a centralized credit model, which has brought about tremendous changes in the ways of production and collaboration as well as lifestyles of humans. New legal subjects, objects, and legal relationships have emerged, and a series of criminal risks have inevitably arisen. The digitalization of criminal law should answer the integration and development of law and technology, and be connected with basic data systems such as data property rights, data circulation and transaction, data income distribution, and data security governance. Rooted in China, we should construct original concepts and theories and reconstruct the paradigm of digital asset criminal law regulation in the metaverse.

　　END

　　Journal editorial department

　　The author is Yang Dong, a visiting professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Law of Zhejiang Gongshang University, and a researcher at the Meta-University Research Center of Renmin University of China; Lele, a doctoral student at the School of Law of Zhejiang Gongshang University, and the deputy director of the First Investigation Department of the Wujiang District People’s Procuratorate of Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province. The article was published in the Journal of the National Prosecutor’s College in the 6th issue of 2022. The WeChat official account article has been abridged, please refer to the original text for citation.