The U.S. seizes 127,000 Bitcoins from Cambodia’s Prince Group, drawing global attention

(The image shows a “mobile phone farm” operated by Prince Holding Group. Source: Indictment)

 On October 14, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed criminal charges against Chen Zhi, founder of Cambodia’s Prince Holding Group, and announced the seizure of approximately 127,271 bitcoins under his control, with a total value of up to $15 billion. The U.S. described this move as a historic law enforcement action targeting transnational online fraud. The case has sparked widespread international discussion, with media outlets including the BBC, Lianhe Zaobao, and Las Vegas News reporting on it and expressing differing opinions on the legality of the U.S.’s unilateral actions.

According to the DOJ’s indictment, Chen Zhi and Prince Holding Group operated “pig-butchering” scams through transnational corporate networks and were also suspected of money laundering and forced labor. The group conducted business in more than 30 countries and set up multiple “forced labor scam camps” in Cambodia, detaining individuals to participate in online investment fraud.

In response to these charges, Chen Zhi’s legal team filed a motion on November 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, requesting an extension of the claims period and arguing that the U.S. government had not provided evidence directly linking the seized bitcoins to the alleged scams. The legal team stated that most of the bitcoins had been stolen in the “LuBian.com hacking incident” in December 2020 and had remained idle in the hacker’s wallet until the DOJ initiated legal action.

A core feature of bitcoin is that control over the asset depends on its private keys; without the private key, no third party can access the corresponding wallet. Yet the U.S. DOJ was able to seize such a “non-custodial” wallet, and the methods and legal basis for this action have become a major focus of international attention.

On November 9, China’s National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center released a technical traceability report on the “LuBian mining pool hack,” noting that the stolen bitcoins “remained dormant in addresses controlled by the attackers for four years, with almost no movement.” The report said this behavior “clearly does not match the typical behavior of hackers urgently liquidating assets for profit” and “resembles a precise operation orchestrated by a ‘nation-state hacker organization.’” Max H, Chief Scientist at Singapore-based digital asset service provider Safeheron, also noted that it is technically possible to recover wallet private keys using methods such as “brute-force searches.”

Similar U.S. asset recovery actions are not unprecedented. In 2016, after a hack on the Bitfinex exchange, the U.S. recovered approximately 120,000 bitcoins. Later, in the Silk Road case, the DOJ seized related accounts and platform assets and obtained court approval to sell roughly 69,370 bitcoins, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Additionally, between 2018 and 2021, the U.S. recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in crypto assets through civil forfeiture and criminal procedures in multiple cross-border telecom investment fraud cases.

Looking back, the U.S. has consistently taken a strong stance on crypto asset recovery, often going beyond individual cases and even beyond standard law enforcement boundaries. International observers warn that while these actions appear to be judicial enforcement, in practice they convert legal tools into instruments of geopolitical power, challenging other countries’ sovereignty and destabilizing global financial governance.

The Prince Holding Group case has achieved results in combating online fraud, but it has also raised international concerns regarding the legality of the U.S.’s approach and the limits of sovereignty. The U.S. lacks transparency in its enforcement process and has not coordinated with other nations, raising concerns that it may continue to act unilaterally in controlling foreign digital assets.

If digital assets become tools of great power competition in the future, it could undermine investor confidence in cryptocurrency security and potentially destabilize the global financial system. The international community must take responsibility and conduct judicial actions through more transparent, multilateral cooperation mechanisms, jointly safeguarding global financial stability and investor confidence.