In criminal cases involving cryptocurrency, the theft of virtual assets remains a prevalent offense in judicial practice. The legal classification of such acts is critically important, as it leads to vastly different sentencing outcomes. If prosecuted as theft, perpetrators could face life imprisonment for large-scale offenses, whereas conviction for the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data carries a maximum sentence of only seven years. Currently, the absence of overarching legislation defining the legal attributes of virtual currency under criminal law has resulted in persistent controversy and inconsistent judicial rulings regarding how to charge individuals for stealing cryptocurrency. Judicial authorities typically adopt one of three approaches: classifying virtual currency as property under criminal law and applying theft charges; treating it as electronic data within a computer system and pursuing charges for illegal data acquisition; or recognizing that the act infringes upon both property rights and information system security, applying the doctrine of imaginative joinder of offenses and ultimately prosecuting under the heavier charge, which is often theft. From a defense perspective, arguing the classification of the offense is as crucial as disputing the amount involved, especially in high-value cases. The定性 (nature determination) of the charge is frequently the decisive factor for sentencing. The core of the debate hinges on how judicial personnel perceive virtual currency: as property or as data. In practice, an increasing number of officials acknowledge its property attributes, influenced by its demonstrable convertibility to fiat currency and its use in various criminal activities, including bribery. This trend favors theft charges. However, defense lawyers argue that this interpretation can lead to disproportionately severe sentences. A cited case from the Dalian Intermediate Court [(2021) Liao 02 Xing Zhong 258] illustrates this disparity. A defendant who stole virtual currency valued at approximately 530,000 RMB received a ten-year sentence for theft at the first trial, despite full restitution and victim forgiveness. Upon appeal, the conviction was changed to illegal data acquisition, resulting in a reduced sentence of four years. Furthermore, misconceptions about the nature of specific cryptocurrencies, such as mistaking the stablecoin USDT for a volatile asset like stocks, highlight knowledge gaps among some judicial personnel, underscoring the need for specialized legal defense in such cases. An analysis of a case from the Chongqing High Court [(2022) Yu 0241 Xing Chu 132 Hao] provides a reference point for defense strategies arguing for the data crime classification. The court’s rationale included: 1) Virtual currency lacks the essential attributes of a commodity (exchange value and use value) in the traditional Marxist economic sense and is fundamentally electronic information data, not property protected by criminal law; and 2) Prosecuting as theft presents practical challenges in fairly determining the value of the stolen assets for sentencing, whereas the sentencing standards for illegal data acquisition are more definite, promoting judicial consistency and fairness. Legal experts note that while the Chongqing case offers a valuable framework, real-world cases are often more complex, requiring nuanced and case-specific defense strategies. The ongoing legal ambiguity and lack of unified standards, while challenging, also create辩护空间 (defense space). Effective defense relies on a deep understanding of these gray areas, crafting targeted strategies, and engaging in sustained, rational communication with judicial authorities to clarify the nature of virtual assets, the defendant’s actions, and the boundaries of evidence. The goal is to secure a fair and just outcome for clients within the existing legal framework.