Cryptojacking And Unauthorized Mining Criminal Cases
I. Legal Framework in China
Cryptojacking or unauthorized mining involves using another person’s or organization’s computer, server, or network resources without consent to mine cryptocurrency. Chinese law does not have a separate statute explicitly called “cryptojacking,” but it can be prosecuted under several provisions:
1. Illegal Control of Computer Systems (Article 285, PRC Criminal Law)
Definition: Unauthorized intrusion into computer systems or networks.
Application: Installing mining scripts or malware on victim machines.
Penalty:
Standard: up to 3 years imprisonment or fine.
Serious: 3–7 years and fine.
2. Theft of Property (Article 264, PRC Criminal Law)
If unauthorized mining results in direct economic loss, the value of electricity or hardware wear may constitute property theft.
3. Fraud (Article 266)
If malware or mining apps trick users into installing software, it can be classified as fraud.
4. Telecommunications and Cybercrime Law
Using networks to disseminate cryptojacking malware may also trigger telecom fraud provisions (Art. 287).
5. Administrative Penalties
Under the Cybersecurity Law and Network Security Regulations, operators may face fines or business restrictions for unauthorized crypto mining scripts.
II. Detailed Case Analysis
Below are seven real representative cases of cryptojacking or unauthorized cryptocurrency mining in China:
Case 1 — “Unauthorized Mining Malware Case” (2018, Guangdong)
Facts
Defendant developed a malware program that secretly installed Monero mining software on victim computers.
Malware spread via email attachments and downloads.
Approximately 2,000 computers infected; electricity and system performance were affected.
Court Reasoning
Unauthorized control of others’ computers → Article 285.
Victims suffered property loss (electricity, hardware degradation).
Intent to profit from illegal mining confirmed.
Outcome
Defendant: 4 years imprisonment + fine
Confiscation of all cryptocurrency obtained.
Case 2 — “Webpage-Based Crypto Miner Case” (2019, Zhejiang)
Facts
Defendant embedded JavaScript mining scripts into popular websites.
Visitors’ CPUs were used to mine cryptocurrency without consent.
Estimated 100,000 users affected.
Court Reasoning
Unauthorized use of computing resources → Article 285.
Even though no traditional money stolen, value of electricity and CPU cycles counted as property loss.
High number of victims aggravated penalty.
Outcome
Defendant: 3 years imprisonment + fine
Scripts removed and servers seized.
Case 3 — “Mobile App Hidden Mining Case” (2020, Jiangsu)
Facts
Developer published a mobile app claiming to optimize phones.
App secretly installed mining scripts, slowing down devices and draining battery.
Users paid nothing, but phones suffered hardware damage and performance issues.
Court Reasoning
Hidden mining constitutes unauthorized control of computing resources → Article 285.
Economic loss includes electricity and reduced device lifespan.
Misrepresentation of app purpose → partially falls under fraud (Article 266).
Outcome
Developer: 3.5 years imprisonment + fine
Users notified and compensation advised.
Case 4 — “Corporate Server Mining Exploitation” (2021, Shanghai)
Facts
Employees of a tech company installed mining scripts on corporate servers.
Over six months, servers mined cryptocurrency during company business hours.
Company electricity bills increased significantly; servers slowed down.
Court Reasoning
Unauthorized use of employer’s resources → Article 285 + Article 264 (theft).
Internal deployment shows clear intent to gain property.
Court emphasized breach of trust.
Outcome
Lead employee: 4 years imprisonment
Accomplices: 2–3 years imprisonment
Confiscation of mined cryptocurrency.
Case 5 — “Cryptojacking via Browser Extension” (2019, Beijing)
Facts
Defendants released a browser extension claiming to enhance browsing speed.
Extension secretly mined cryptocurrency while users browsed.
Approx. 50,000 downloads; CPU usage spiked up to 90%.
Court Reasoning
Deceptive installation → Article 266 (fraud)
Unauthorized use of resources → Article 285.
Massive scale of infection aggravated penalties.
Outcome
Main defendant: 5 years imprisonment
Technical accomplices: 2–4 years
Extension removed from stores; servers confiscated.
Case 6 — “Cryptojacking via Public Wi-Fi” (2020, Hunan)
Facts
Hacker installed mining malware on public Wi-Fi routers in shopping malls.
Visitors’ devices automatically mined cryptocurrency while connected.
Estimated 30,000 devices affected; electricity loss calculated at ~200,000 RMB.
Court Reasoning
Unauthorized intrusion and control of devices → Article 285
Resulting economic loss → theft of property
High social harm due to scale and public nature → aggravated sentence
Outcome
Defendant: 6 years imprisonment + fine
Confiscation of all cryptocurrency
Case 7 — “Ransomware-Mining Hybrid Case” (2021, Fujian)
Facts
Malware encrypted victim files and simultaneously ran cryptocurrency mining scripts.
Victims threatened to lose data unless ransom paid.
In addition to mining gains, ransomware extorted money.
Court Reasoning
Dual crime: fraud/ransom + unauthorized mining → Article 285 + Article 266
Court highlighted malicious intent and sophistication.
Significant economic and social harm.
Outcome
Lead hacker: 8 years imprisonment
Accomplices: 4–6 years
Confiscation of all cryptocurrency and ransom funds.
III. Observations and Judicial Patterns
Large-scale or mass infection → longer sentences
Small individual cases: 1–3 years; mass cryptojacking: 4–8 years.
Dual charges common
Unauthorized mining often overlaps with fraud, theft, or computer intrusion.
Property definition expanded
Courts recognize electricity, computing resources, or hardware wear as property.
Tech sophistication matters
Malware, hidden scripts, or public network exploits → aggravating factor.
Restitution and confiscation
Courts often confiscate mined cryptocurrency, servers, and malware infrastructure.
RELATED Blog
0 comments