BTC $62,998.88 +0.20%
ETH $1,878.76 +0.20%
BNB $606.69 -0.48%
XRP $1.00 +0.03%
SOL $75.37 +0.44%
TRX $0.3309 -0.33%
DOGE $0.0698 -0.13%
ADA $0.1774 -0.66%
BCH $204.00 -0.52%
LINK $9.42 +1.68%
HYPE $57.45 +2.57%
AAVE $85.90 -1.02%
SUI $0.6771 -0.52%
XLM $0.1570 -0.59%
ZEC $486.99 -0.30%
BTC $62,998.88 +0.20%
ETH $1,878.76 +0.20%
BNB $606.69 -0.48%
XRP $1.00 +0.03%
SOL $75.37 +0.44%
TRX $0.3309 -0.33%
DOGE $0.0698 -0.13%
ADA $0.1774 -0.66%
BCH $204.00 -0.52%
LINK $9.42 +1.68%
HYPE $57.45 +2.57%
AAVE $85.90 -1.02%
SUI $0.6771 -0.52%
XLM $0.1570 -0.59%
ZEC $486.99 -0.30%

sentenced

All
Article
Flash

A man was sentenced to 7 months in prison for defrauding a friend of $1,757 under the guise of a virtual currency airdrop project

A man in Anshun, Guizhou, used the name of a virtual currency airdrop project as a pretext to lure friends into investing with the bait of guaranteed high returns, ultimately crossing the legal red line. The People's Procuratorate of Pingba District, Anshun City, Guizhou Province, filed a public prosecution, and the court sentenced Zhao to seven months in prison for fraud, along with a fine of 5,000 yuan.Zhao had been paying attention to the field of virtual currency investment for many years and had long been posting investment insights and financial management tips on social media platforms. Zhang was also a virtual currency enthusiast, and the two met on a social platform due to their common interests, gradually becoming friends and frequently discussing investment strategies online. Through long-term communication, Zhao gained Zhang's trust with seemingly professional investment analysis. Subsequently, Zhao proposed a joint investment, to which Zhang agreed. However, after a period of investment, Zhang experienced significant losses and expressed his intention to stop further investments.On August 23, 2025, Zhao claimed that a certain app had launched an airdrop project (to promote a new project, encourage user participation, or reward loyal users, distributing native tokens of the project for free to eligible users), persuading Zhang to invest the remaining funds in his account into this project, promising a return of 100 to 200 U coins (virtual currency) within two days. Zhao also guaranteed that if there were any losses during this period, he would bear the responsibility. To further alleviate Zhang's concerns, Zhao claimed that all investment funds would be transferred to a public chain (the public address of the virtual currency). Believing Zhao, Zhang exchanged 1,757 dollars in his account for Ethereum and completed the transfer according to the wallet link provided by Zhao. In reality, the wallet corresponding to that link was a personal account registered using his girlfriend's identity information, not a public chain. The agreed time for the return of funds had passed, but Zhao had not fulfilled his promise. Zhang urged for repayment multiple times, but Zhao evaded responsibility with excuses such as sending the wrong link and needing time to track it down. On September 7 of the same year, Zhang reported the situation to the police after noticing something was wrong.On April 2 of this year, the Pingba District Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against Zhao for suspected fraud. The procuratorial agency believed that Zhao deceived others out of property by concealing the truth, with a significant amount involved, constituting the crime of fraud. Given that Zhao truthfully confessed to the criminal facts after being apprehended, showed signs of remorse, and had fully compensated the victim for their losses while voluntarily admitting guilt, he could be punished leniently according to the law.

The second trial of the 660,000 yuan virtual currency theft case in Wuhan, China, has been revised: the main culprit was sentenced to ten years and six months in prison, and the amount stolen was determined based on the actual payment cost incurred by the victim

According to the "Procuratorial Daily," Lin, Zeng, and Dai conspired to use virtual currency trading as a pretext. During the trading process, they secretly filmed the victim's digital wallet private key and, after the virtual currency was credited, secretly logged into the victim's wallet to reverse the transaction, transferring the related virtual currency back to their controlled accounts. The three committed the crime three times, causing the victim a total economic loss of 660,000 yuan.The first-instance court held that in the absence of a clear judicial interpretation regarding the valuation method of virtual currency and sentencing standards, it was inappropriate to directly determine the amount involved as particularly huge based on the victim's purchase amount of 660,000 yuan. Therefore, they sentenced the three based on "other serious circumstances," imposing prison terms ranging from eight years to five years and six months, along with fines. The Hanyang District Procuratorate of Wuhan City in Hubei Province subsequently filed an appeal, which was supported by the Wuhan City Procuratorate.The prosecution argued that the first-instance court applied the law incorrectly and imposed an excessively light sentence. Prosecutor Dai Wentao of the Wuhan City Procuratorate stated that in the case where the victim had a clear loss amount to refer to, it was contradictory and legally erroneous to claim that the value of virtual currency could not be determined. In judicial practice, using the resale price and transaction price as the basis for determining the amount of theft has become mainstream, and determining the value of virtual currency based on the actual cost paid by the victim has factual, legal, and practical basis.The Intermediate Court of Wuhan accepted the prosecution's opinion in the second instance, revoked the corresponding content of the original judgment, and changed the determination of the theft amount to particularly huge. It sentenced the principal offender Lin to ten years and six months in prison for theft, and sentenced the accomplices Zeng and Dai to eight years in prison each, along with fines.

A man in Qingdao, China, was sentenced to 10 years and 9 months for stealing 107 BTC while "helping an acquaintance register a wallet."

Recently, the People's Procuratorate of Licang District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, China, handled a Bitcoin theft case. The defendant, Zhang, obtained the mnemonic phrase while assisting an acquaintance in registering a virtual currency wallet, and later transferred 107 BTC in multiple transactions, equivalent to over 50 million yuan at current market prices. Zhang argued that his actions were a "protective takeover," but the prosecution found that he transferred the stolen BTC through multiple trading platforms and exchanged it for over 660,000 yuan. The Licang District Court sentenced Zhang to 10 years and 9 months in prison for theft and imposed a fine of 100,000 yuan; the second instance upheld the original judgment.Reports indicate that the prosecutor handling the case strictly adhered to laws and judicial policies, and after in-depth analysis, concluded that although China's regulatory policies deny the legal currency status of virtual currencies, they do not negate their property attributes, nor do they prohibit citizens from legally holding and circulating them. Bitcoin requires investment in computing power, funds, and other costs to acquire, which gives it economic value; rights holders can achieve exclusive control and management through private keys and mnemonic phrases, aligning with the core characteristics of "property" in criminal law, making it a target for theft. In determining the amount, since virtual currencies have no official pricing, the Licang District Procuratorate discarded market price estimates and used the actual proceeds from the crime of over 660,000 yuan as the amount for theft, ensuring accurate conviction, appropriate sentencing, and unity of guilt and punishment.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.