This article, the second in a series, examines how to determine the amount involved in criminal cases within the traditional gaming industry and the Web3 sector. The analysis is based on a criminal judgment from a Shanghai court involving an employee who modified backend data to generate and resell in-game currency for profit. While in-game currency and cryptocurrency are distinct, judicial authorities often reference precedents from the gaming industry when handling Web3 and virtual asset cases, due to the current lack of specific legislative guidance and established judicial standards for the latter. Therefore, studying traditional gaming cases provides valuable insight into the reasoning and judgment patterns of legal practitioners when dealing with virtual assets, enabling lawyers to formulate more effective litigation and communication strategies. **Key Considerations for Determining the Amount Involved** The Shanghai court’s approach offers significant reference value for cryptocurrency-related criminal cases. The court did not simply adopt the game currency’s listed price or the perpetrator’s actual sale price. Instead, it considered multiple factors: **1. Distinguishing Nominal Price from Realizable Value:** The court noted that the pricing of in-game currency has a weak correlation with its production cost. Unlike physical goods, virtual currency can be produced indefinitely with minimal cost after the initial system development. Similarly, in the cryptocurrency field, a significant discrepancy often exists between a token’s “nominal price” (e.g., issuance price, internal valuation) and its “realizable value.” When handling crimes like embezzlement or fraud, lawyers must distinguish between: * **Liquidity:** The prerequisite for value realization. Major cryptocurrencies like BTC and ETH have deep liquidity, providing objective price references. Many meme coins or project-specific tokens lack genuine market depth. * **Market Price:** The price displayed on a blockchain or exchange may not be judicially admissible if formed by market manipulation, low-volume trades, or “pump” actions, failing to reflect true value. * **Realizable Value:** The actual amount for which the tokens can be liquidated without significantly impacting the market. This is crucial for determining property loss, illegal gains, and the amount involved. Using a “nominal price” for illiquid tokens could lead to disproportionate sentencing. The choice of valuation benchmark—whether the on-chain price at the time of the act, the Token Generation Event (TGE)/private sale price, or the realizable value—can drastically affect the sentencing range. **2. Distinguishing Pricing from Actual Property Loss:** The court ruled that the pricing of in-game currency is not equivalent to the operator’s actual financial loss. As operators can replicate currency via code, a loss of some currency does not equate to a direct financial loss of an equal amount. The price represents potential expected revenue, not a realized loss. In cryptocurrency, the valuation of tokens remains highly contentious. While mainstream cryptocurrencies are generally recognized as “property” in judicial practice due to scarcity and market mechanisms, tokens priced subjectively by projects without real liquidity or use cases resemble in-game currency. Their value is assigned rather than market-derived. For such tokens acquired illegally in large quantities, the crime of **illegally obtaining computer information system data** might be a more appropriate charge than property crimes like embezzlement, to avoid imbalance in amount assessment. **3. Adhering to a Principle of Moderate Protection in Criminal Policy:** The court advocated for a moderate protection principle towards virtual property like game currency, acknowledging the industry’s social benefits while recognizing potential conflicts with values like youth protection. It stated that protecting excessive, uncertain profits (like potential future sales) would constitute overprotection and allow companies to profit from the crime, which is improper. This policy perspective is relevant for cryptocurrency-related occupational crimes. Given China’s consistent regulatory stance—from the 2013 notice on Bitcoin risks to the 2017 ICO ban, the 2021 designation of virtual currency business as illegal financial activity, and the multi-department coordination meeting in November 2025—virtual currency trading is treated as **illegal financial activity**. When Web3 projects or exchanges claim victim status due to virtual asset infringement, the question arises whether such “property interests” deserve criminal protection. Directly recognizing them as victims and affirming high claim amounts may conflict with national regulatory attitudes, requiring cautious judgment. **Conclusion** Determining the amount involved in cryptocurrency cases is more complex than valuing in-game currency. It involves not only the asset’s economic structure and liquidity but also layered and sensitive policy factors, creating greater uncertainty and room for debate in judicial practice. For lawyers specializing in Web3, the goal of studying traditional gaming cases is not to apply them directly but to understand the cognitive framework of legal authorities regarding “virtual assets.” Effective communication requires this understanding. However, it is crucial to recognize that Web3 cases operate on fundamentally different logic regarding token valuation, transaction mechanisms, liquidity, and policy context. This results in higher uncertainty in charge classification, amount assessment, and the scope of criminal protection. Therefore, lawyers cannot rely on single or traditional approaches. They must integrate practical experience from handling crypto cases, flexibly navigating between four dimensions: **asset structure, technical principles, market value, and policy background**, to construct the most suitable defense strategy for clients. **Disclaimer:** This article represents the author’s personal views and is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or an offer, and readers must comply with the laws and regulations of their respective countries or regions.