Decentralized Finance Scam Prosecutions
What is Decentralized Finance (DeFi)?
DeFi refers to financial services built on blockchain technology, operating without central intermediaries like banks.
Includes lending platforms, decentralized exchanges (DEXs), yield farming, and stablecoins.
DeFi is attractive for transparency and accessibility but is also vulnerable to scams due to:
Lack of regulation,
Anonymous actors,
Technical complexity,
Irreversible blockchain transactions.
Common Types of DeFi Scams
Rug pulls: Developers raise funds then drain liquidity pools and disappear.
Ponzi schemes: Fraudulent investment schemes promising high returns.
Fake ICOs/Token launches: Non-existent projects raising funds.
Smart contract vulnerabilities: Exploited by hackers to steal funds.
Phishing and impersonation scams.
Legal Framework
Enforcement agencies use a mix of:
Securities laws (if tokens are deemed securities),
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority,
Fraud statutes under federal law (wire fraud, money laundering),
Money Transmission laws,
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations,
And increasingly, blockchain forensic tools to trace illicit funds.
⚖️ Key Cases in DeFi Scam Prosecutions
1. United States v. Ruja Ignatova (“OneCoin” case), 2019
Facts:
Ruja Ignatova operated OneCoin, marketed as a cryptocurrency but actually a massive Ponzi scheme with billions raised worldwide.
OneCoin falsely claimed to be a decentralized currency with proprietary blockchain tech.
Legal Issues:
Charged with wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering.
Deceived investors globally via fake DeFi token sales.
Outcome:
Ignatova disappeared, remains at large.
Several associates arrested and prosecuted.
Case highlights early large-scale DeFi/crypto fraud enforcement.
2. United States v. Scott, 2022 (“Squid Game” Token Scam)
Facts:
A crypto token named “Squid Game” was launched, gaining rapid popularity.
The developers suddenly executed a “rug pull” draining investor funds worth millions.
Legal Issues:
Scott and co-defendants charged with wire fraud and securities fraud.
Alleged intentionally engineered liquidity drain.
Outcome:
Indicted and arrested.
This case is a notable example of rug pulls being prosecuted as criminal fraud.
3. United States v. Kopper, 2021
Facts:
Kopper ran a DeFi lending platform promising high returns.
Falsely represented the platform’s solvency while diverting user funds for personal gain.
Legal Issues:
Charged with fraud and money laundering.
Exploited DeFi’s anonymity to hide proceeds.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 7 years.
Case emphasized criminal liability despite decentralized tech façade.
4. SEC v. Tron Foundation (Justin Sun), 2020
Facts:
SEC charged Tron Foundation with fraudulent ICO fundraising.
Alleged misrepresentations about token distribution and use of proceeds.
Legal Issues:
While Tron argued decentralized aspects, SEC maintained jurisdiction over fundraising fraud.
Settled with fines and disgorgement.
Outcome:
Highlights SEC’s approach to DeFi projects seen as securities issuers.
5. United States v. Ellison, 2023
Facts:
Ellison operated a DeFi protocol with a flawed smart contract exploited by hackers.
Instead of fixing the exploit, Ellison allegedly colluded with the hacker to share stolen proceeds.
Legal Issues:
Charges include conspiracy, fraud, and money laundering.
Case explores criminal complicity in DeFi hacks.
Outcome:
Ongoing trial; represents novel prosecution of internal DeFi fraud.
6. United States v. Zhao, 2021
Facts:
Zhao managed a decentralized exchange platform involved in facilitating unregistered securities sales and laundering proceeds of scams.
Legal Issues:
Charges under money transmission laws, unregistered securities sales, and wire fraud.
Prosecution focused on operator responsibility despite decentralized nature.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 5 years.
Demonstrated regulator willingness to target DeFi platform operators.
Key Legal Takeaways
| Aspect | Legal Consideration |
|---|---|
| Rug pulls & exit scams | Treated as wire fraud and securities fraud. |
| ICOs and token sales | Subject to securities laws if tokens qualify. |
| Exploited vulnerabilities | Criminal charges include conspiracy and fraud. |
| Anonymity & decentralization | Not a shield from prosecution or jurisdiction. |
| Money laundering & proceeds | AML enforcement integrated with cyber investigations. |
Summary
DeFi scam prosecutions are increasing as regulators and prosecutors catch up with evolving blockchain technologies. Courts apply traditional fraud and securities laws to hold scammers accountable even in decentralized, anonymous environments.
Cases show a mix of outright Ponzi schemes, deceptive fundraising, insider collusion, and technical exploits, reinforcing that DeFi participants and developers face significant legal risks.
RELATED Blog
comments