Judicial Interpretation Of Cryptocurrency Theft And Scams
Introduction
Cryptocurrency theft and scams involve unauthorized access, fraud, Ponzi schemes, phishing attacks, or misappropriation in blockchain-based assets. Courts worldwide have interpreted these cases under:
Fraud and theft laws
Cybercrime statutes
Securities regulations (where tokens are treated as securities)
Consumer protection laws
Given the pseudonymous and cross-border nature of crypto, courts often grapple with jurisdiction, classification of assets, and applicability of traditional financial regulations.
1. SEC v. Shavers (USA, 2013)
Background:
Taylor Shavers ran Bitcoin Savings & Trust, promising high returns on Bitcoin investments. Investors lost millions.
Legal Issue:
Does a cryptocurrency-based investment constitute a security under U.S. securities law? Can the SEC prosecute Ponzi schemes in Bitcoin?
Holding:
Court held Bitcoin investments can be securities if there’s an investment of money in a common enterprise with expected profits from others’ efforts.
Shavers was ordered to return funds and face civil penalties.
Impact:
Established that cryptocurrency schemes can be prosecuted as securities fraud.
Opened the door for SEC enforcement over ICOs and crypto Ponzi schemes.
2. United States v. Faiella and Agrawal (2014)
Background:
Operators of BitInstant, a cryptocurrency exchange, were charged with money laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmission business.
Legal Issue:
Do crypto exchanges fall under traditional financial regulatory frameworks, including anti-money laundering (AML) laws?
Holding:
Both defendants pleaded guilty. Court ruled that Bitcoin transactions are subject to federal AML laws.
Impact:
Reinforced that cryptocurrency operators are bound by federal banking and anti-money laundering regulations, even if dealing with digital assets.
3. SEC v. PlexCorps (2017)
Background:
PlexCorps conducted an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) promising unrealistic returns to investors globally.
Legal Issue:
Can ICOs be classified as securities offerings? Is promoting a fraudulent ICO punishable under U.S. securities law?
Holding:
SEC obtained an emergency restraining order, froze assets, and later secured a civil injunction against PlexCorps founders.
Impact:
Clarified that tokens sold with profit expectations are securities, even in decentralized platforms.
Strengthened SEC enforcement against crypto scams globally.
4. United States v. OneCoin (2019)
Background:
OneCoin was a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme, with global investors losing billions. Founder Ruja Ignatova disappeared.
Legal Issue:
Can international cryptocurrency scams be prosecuted under U.S. criminal law if victims include U.S. residents?
Holding:
U.S. prosecutors indicted key figures, froze assets, and obtained convictions for fraud and money laundering.
Court emphasized cross-border jurisdiction based on investor location.
Impact:
Showed that cryptocurrency scams with global reach are subject to U.S. prosecution.
Highlighted challenges of enforcing judgments against fugitives in crypto scams.
5. Shahar v. Ethereum Foundation (2018, Israel)
Background:
Investors sued the Ethereum Foundation alleging that pre-mined Ether tokens sold in early ICOs were misrepresented.
Legal Issue:
Are pre-mined cryptocurrency tokens considered securities, and can civil liability arise for misrepresentation?
Holding:
Court held that even decentralized crypto projects can be liable if there is intentional misrepresentation causing investor losses.
Impact:
Extended judicial scrutiny of pre-mined and ICO-based cryptocurrencies.
Reinforced investor protection principles in blockchain projects.
6. U.S. v. Gelfman (2019)
Background:
Michael Gelfman misappropriated clients’ cryptocurrency assets from a digital wallet management service.
Legal Issue:
Does misappropriation of cryptocurrency constitute theft and wire fraud under U.S. law?
Holding:
Court ruled that digital assets are property for purposes of theft and wire fraud statutes. Gelfman was sentenced to prison and restitution.
Impact:
Confirmed that cryptocurrency is treated as property, enabling criminal prosecution for theft or fraud.
Clarified legal remedies for victims of crypto misappropriation.
7. UK Financial Conduct Authority v. Coinfloor Ltd. (2018)
Background:
Coinfloor, a UK crypto exchange, failed to protect clients’ funds during a security breach, causing losses.
Legal Issue:
Are crypto exchanges subject to regulatory obligations to safeguard customer funds?
Holding:
FCA found Coinfloor liable for failure to maintain adequate security, issued fines, and mandated improved operational practices.
Impact:
Emphasized regulatory accountability of crypto platforms.
Clarified that cybersecurity breaches can lead to enforcement action under financial regulations.
Key Judicial Principles
Cryptocurrency can be treated as property or securities depending on context (Shavers, PlexCorps, Gelfman).
Cross-border jurisdiction applies if investors from a country are harmed (OneCoin, PlexCorps).
Exchange operators and wallet managers have fiduciary or regulatory obligations (Faiella, Coinfloor).
Fraudulent ICOs or pre-mined tokens are actionable under securities and consumer protection laws (PlexCorps, Shahar v. Ethereum Foundation).
Misappropriation, theft, or hacking of crypto can be prosecuted under traditional theft, wire fraud, and money laundering statutes.
Investor protection and regulatory enforcement are central, even for decentralized platforms.
Comparative Table of Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Offence | Ruling | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Shavers | USA | Bitcoin Ponzi scheme | Conviction, restitution | Crypto investments can be securities |
| US v. Faiella & Agrawal | USA | Money transmission violations | Guilty plea | Crypto exchanges under AML laws |
| SEC v. PlexCorps | USA | Fraudulent ICO | Injunction, asset freeze | ICOs treated as securities |
| US v. OneCoin | USA | Global Ponzi scheme | Indictment, asset freeze | Cross-border crypto fraud actionable |
| Shahar v. Ethereum Foundation | Israel | ICO misrepresentation | Civil liability | Pre-mined tokens scrutinized |
| US v. Gelfman | USA | Misappropriation of crypto | Conviction, restitution | Crypto treated as property for theft |
| FCA v. Coinfloor | UK | Security breach | Fine, regulatory orders | Exchanges liable for client fund protection |
These cases illustrate how courts interpret cryptocurrency theft and scams through a combination of traditional fraud, property, securities, and cybercrime laws, while addressing cross-border jurisdictional challenges and investor protection.
RELATED Blog
0 comments