Cryptocurrency Scams, Laundering, And Ponzi Schemes
I. Introduction
Cryptocurrency scams and Ponzi schemes exploit the pseudonymous, decentralized, and largely unregulated nature of digital assets. Common forms include:
Ponzi schemes: Promise high returns paid from new investors’ funds rather than legitimate profits.
Exit scams: Operators of exchanges or investment platforms disappear with investors’ funds.
Pump-and-dump schemes: Artificially inflate token prices to profit from uninformed buyers.
Fraudulent ICOs and token sales: Investors misled by fake projects or misappropriation of funds.
Money laundering via cryptocurrency: Criminal proceeds disguised through exchanges, mixers, or DeFi protocols.
Legal challenges:
Jurisdictional issues, as crypto is borderless.
Identifying perpetrators hiding behind pseudonyms.
Tracing funds across wallets and exchanges.
Applying traditional financial fraud and securities laws to crypto.
Legal frameworks:
U.S.: Securities Act, SEC regulations, CFTC rules, and Money Laundering Control Act
EU: MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation), AML directives
Global guidance: FATF Travel Rule and crypto AML standards
II. Key Legal Principles
Fraud and misrepresentation: Promises of profits must be truthful.
Securities law: Many ICOs or tokens may be classified as securities.
Ponzi and pyramid schemes: Illegal under consumer protection and criminal laws.
Money laundering statutes: Crypto proceeds can be traced and seized.
Investor protection: Courts prioritize recovering victims’ funds and penalizing operators.
III. Case Law Analysis
1. United States v. Trendon Shavers (“Bitcoin Savings and Trust,” 2015, U.S.)
Facts:
Shavers ran “Bitcoin Savings and Trust,” promising 7% weekly returns via Bitcoin investments. It was a Ponzi scheme.
Charges:
Securities fraud
Wire fraud
Operating an unlicensed investment fund
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 18 years imprisonment
Ordered to forfeit over 500,000 BTC
Significance:
Landmark U.S. case defining Ponzi schemes in cryptocurrency.
Courts recognized that promises of high returns using crypto constitute investment fraud.
2. United States v. Ruja Ignatova (“OneCoin,” 2019, International)
Facts:
Ignatova founded OneCoin, marketed as a cryptocurrency but lacked a real blockchain. Sold tokens worldwide via multi-level marketing.
Charges:
Wire fraud
Securities fraud
Money laundering
Outcome:
Fugitive; trial ongoing in absentia
U.S. DOJ and Europol issued multiple indictments and asset seizures
Significance:
Shows large-scale international Ponzi schemes using cryptocurrency.
Multi-jurisdictional enforcement is crucial due to borderless operations.
3. United States v. Homero Joshua Garza (“GAW Miners,” 2016, U.S.)
Facts:
Garza sold cloud mining contracts promising returns from cryptocurrency mining operations, which never existed.
Charges:
Wire fraud
Securities fraud
Money laundering
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 21 months imprisonment
Ordered $9.1 million restitution to victims
Significance:
Demonstrates that crypto mining scams can constitute Ponzi schemes.
Highlights investor reliance on false technical claims.
4. United States v. Michael Terpin & Coin.mx Case (Cryptopia Fraud, 2019, U.S./NZ)
Facts:
Cryptopia exchange users were defrauded in hacks and exit scams; Terpin represented investors in recovering funds.
Charges:
Fraud
Misappropriation of investor assets
Outcome:
Courts facilitated civil recovery actions and regulatory enforcement, though criminal convictions were limited due to offshore operators.
Significance:
Highlights cross-border crypto fraud and challenges in prosecuting exchange operators.
5. United States v. Christopher J. McGoey (“BitConnect,” 2021, U.S.)
Facts:
BitConnect operated as a cryptocurrency lending and investment platform, promising high returns paid from new investors.
Charges:
Securities fraud
Wire fraud
Operating a Ponzi scheme
Outcome:
Criminal charges led to arrests and asset forfeitures
Investors partially recovered funds through civil actions
Significance:
Illustrates that decentralized lending platforms can be used for Ponzi-like operations.
Courts treat promises of fixed returns as fraudulent if unsustainable.
6. United States v. Shuvendu Ghosh (ICO Fraud, 2022, U.S.)
Facts:
Ghosh launched a token sale (ICO), claiming funds would be used to develop technology, but misappropriated funds for personal use.
Charges:
Securities fraud
Wire fraud
Money laundering
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 10 years imprisonment
Ordered to reimburse investors
Significance:
Reinforces that ICOs are subject to securities and fraud laws.
Misrepresentation of project use of funds constitutes criminal offense.
7. United States v. Barry Silbert & Digital Currency Group-Related Ponzi Investigations (U.S., 2023)
Facts:
Investigations into multiple crypto investment schemes under the management of large crypto firms alleged misrepresentation of returns and use of investor funds.
Outcome:
Civil settlements with regulatory bodies (SEC, CFTC)
Some criminal charges pending
Significance:
Shows regulatory reach over large crypto entities.
Demonstrates that corporate structures do not shield from Ponzi or misappropriation liability.
IV. Key Observations
High returns are red flags: Fixed, guaranteed returns in crypto are often Ponzi indicators.
Ponzi schemes often cross borders: International cooperation is essential.
Exchanges and ICOs are scrutinized: Misrepresentation or misuse of funds triggers legal liability.
Cryptocurrency does not shield criminals: Blockchain records often help trace illicit funds.
Multi-layered schemes: Many involve money laundering to obscure the flow of illicit crypto proceeds.
V. Conclusion
Cryptocurrency scams, laundering, and Ponzi schemes are increasingly prosecuted using traditional financial laws adapted to digital assets:
Courts classify Ponzi schemes, fraudulent ICOs, and mining scams under fraud, securities violations, and money laundering statutes.
Asset tracing on blockchain facilitates prosecution and restitution.
Landmark cases like Bitcoin Savings & Trust, OneCoin, GAW Miners, BitConnect, and ICO fraud cases illustrate both criminal liability and the importance of regulatory oversight.
RELATED Blog
0 comments