Research On Digital Asset Theft Facilitated By Ai And Blockchain Technologies
Case 1: Shakeeb Ahmed – Smart‑Contract Exploit of Decentralized Exchanges (U.S., 2024)
Facts:
Ahmed, a senior security engineer at a technology company, exploited a vulnerability in two decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges (DEXs) in July 2022.
He inserted fake pricing data into a smart contract (on a blockchain) governing one of the DEXs, causing the contract to issue inflated “fee credits” worth about US$9 million. He withdrew those funds in cryptocurrency
After stealing the funds, he attempted to negotiate returning all but about US$1.5 m if the exchange didn’t report him to law‑enforcement.
Legal Issues:
This is a theft/fraud via blockchain smart‑contract. The key legal challenge: blockchain smart‑contract is autonomous code; how do you attribute fraud to a human actor?
Charges: computer fraud, wire fraud, theft via smart contract exploitation. The U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, described it as “the first ever conviction for the hack of a smart contract.”
Evidence issues: tracing crypto‑flows, asset forfeiture of stolen cryptocurrency, proving that the smart contract was manipulated rather than legitimately interacted with.
AI role: While the case does not explicitly say “AI was used”, Ahmed’s job (reverse‑engineering smart contracts) suggests automation tools were in play; the exploit involved algorithmic manipulation and blockchain automation.
Outcome:
Ahmed pled guilty and on April 12, 2024 he was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to forfeit all stolen crypto.
The case sets precedent for smart‑contract hacks being treated like “traditional hacking + fraud” under existing criminal law.
Significance:
Demonstrates that theft of digital assets via blockchain smart contracts is prosecutable under fraud/unauthorised access laws.
Reinforces that “code is law” defence (i.e., that a smart contract executed according to its code therefore no crime) may not be accepted if human manipulation is proven.
Shows regulatory systems can trace and enforce crypto asset mechanisms (blockchain analytics, forfeiture).
Alerts protocol/gateway designers: smart contracts must be audited and secure against automated exploit tools.
Case 2: Virtual Currency Theft – China, Beijing Court (2022)
Facts:
In Beijing, the People’s Court of Chaoyang District convicted a defendant of theft of virtual currencies (including Bitcoin and USDT) worth about 50 million yuan (~US$7 million) by way of unauthorised transfer of wallets.
The defendant helped a victim set up a crypto‑wallet, later transferred the virtual assets to his own wallet.
Legal Issues:
The Chinese court recognised virtual currencies as having property attribute and applied the theft statute. Thus the blockchain assets were treated like “things”.
This contrasts with other jurisdictions (see Case 4 below) that struggle to define crypto‑assets as “movable property” for theft laws.
AI role: Not explicit, but wallet‑theft often uses automated/malware/automation tools; the case is relevant for digital‑asset theft and the legal recognition of blockchain tokens as property.
Outcome:
The defendant was sentenced to 12 years in prison, fined 200,000 yuan, and had political rights deprived for 2 years.
Significance:
Shows willingness of some jurisdictions to criminalise large‑scale digital asset theft via blockchain.
The recognition of virtual currency as “property” gives legal footing to prosecute digital asset theft.
Practically, this adds risk of severe penalty for digital‑asset theft perpetrators.
Encourages other jurisdictions to consider analogues: treat crypto‑assets as property for criminal theft statutes.
Case 3: German Court Loophole – Crypto Theft Avoiding Conviction (Germany, 2024)
Facts:
A defendant in Germany allegedly stole ~25 million tokens from a victim by accessing a “24‑word seed phrase” for a crypto‑wallet and transferring the tokens.
Charges of theft under § 242 German Criminal Code (StGB) were dismissed because the court held that cryptocurrencies are not “movable things” under the theft statute.
Legal Issues:
Major legal gap: Traditional theft statutes require “movable property”. The court found that crypto‑assets (tokens) don’t meet that criterion under current German law.
Additional charges (computer fraud, data falsification) were also dismissed because the court held the network transactions were authorised under the blockchain protocols.
AI role: The case did not highlight AI usage, but the underlying manipulation of seed phrase may involve automation/malware tools. Regardless, it underscores legal framing of digital‑asset theft.
Outcome:
Charges dismissed for main counts; the accused avoided criminal liability despite clear theft of crypto‑assets.
Significance:
Illustrates regulatory/legislative lag in digital‑asset theft laws: even obvious large‑scale theft may go unpunished if statutes aren’t adapted.
Encourages legislative reform (e.g., amendments to theft laws to cover digital assets) in Germany and beyond.
Important precedent: legal risk for victims that theft of crypto‑assets may not always yield criminal remedies in some jurisdictions.
Case 4: Theft of Digital Assets on DeFi Platform – Mango DAO Manipulation (U.S., 2024)
Facts:
A trader, Avraham Eisenberg, manipulated a DeFi lending/trading protocol (Mango Markets). He inflated his position’s value drastically, borrowed assets, and withdrew about US$110 million worth of cryptocurrency.
The manipulation occurred via smart‑contract design features of the protocol; although not strictly labelled “AI‑assisted”, the exploit was highly algorithmic/automated in nature.
Legal Issues:
Prosecutors charged him with commodities and wire fraud and market manipulation.
The legal question: Can manipulation of decentralized algorithmic protocols (smart contracts) be treated as fraud/manipulation under traditional financial statutes? The answer: yes.
AI role: While not explicitly an “AI tool”, the automation and algorithmic nature of DeFi manipulations parallels AI‑facilitated automation. The underlying exploitation of protocol logic is conceptually similar to automated tool use.
Outcome:
Eisenberg was convicted in April 2024 on multiple counts. (This case was widely reported though full judgment details are not always public.)
The conviction sends message that misuse of blockchain protocols + automation = liability under fraud/market laws.
Significance:
Shows digital‑asset theft & manipulation via blockchain/DeFi protocols is prosecutable under existing laws when human actors exploit them.
Highlights that the technology (smart contracts, automation) does not immunize participants from fraud liability.
Suggests future cases may integrate AI‑tool usage in exploitation (bots, automated trades) even more deeply.
Case 5: Insider Trading in NFTs – U.S. Appeal (NFTs, U.S., 2025)
Facts:
A former product manager at the NFT marketplace OpenSea, used advance confidential information about which NFTs would be featured on the site, purchased them early, then sold for profit (~US$57,000). The prosecution treated this as wire fraud and money‑laundering (first NFT insider‑trading prosecution).
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction in July 2025, ruling that the jury instructions were erroneous and that the wire fraud statute requires a victim’s property interest to be violated.
Legal Issues:
Digital‑asset theft/insider fraud: While the assets were NFTs (blockchain tokens), the underlying issue is mis‑use of confidential information to trade for profit.
AI role: Not explicitly “AI” used, but blockchain digital‑asset context and automation of trading parallel the upgraded risk environment for digital‑asset theft/fraud.
Legal challenge: How traditional statutes apply to digital assets; clarifying criminal liability for misuse of insider info in blockchain/NFT context.
Outcome:
Conviction was overturned on appeal, highlighting legal uncertainty in digital‑asset contexts.
The case emphasises need for clearer statutes or guidance on digital assets and fraud.
Significance:
Signals that prosecuting theft/fraud of digital‑assets is complex; existing statutes may not straightforwardly apply.
Encourages legislative/regulatory updates to define digital assets, property‑rights, fraud statutes explicitly for blockchain context.
From digital‑asset theft research standpoint: the case shows inspector/legal authorities and courts are still developing jurisprudence in this area.
Case 6: Large‑scale Crypto Exchange Hack – Bitfinex (U.S., 2016–2024)
Facts:
Hackers breached the Bitfinex exchange in 2016, stealing about 120,000 BTC (worth at that time ~US$72 million; later value much higher). Over many years law‑enforcement traced and recovered ~US$3.6 billion worth of assets
The laundering used cryptocurrency mixers, chain‑hopping, darknet exchanges; investigators used blockchain analytics and forensic work to track them.
Legal Issues:
This theft is purely digital asset theft via blockchain; though the hack used automation, bots and mixing services, AI tools may have been used for analytics, though not explicitly reported.
Challenges include attribution of wallets/addresses, tracing stolen assets across chains, seizure/forfeiture of crypto assets.
The case demonstrates how blockchain transparency can assist law‑enforcement—but also how automation complicates theft and laundering.
Outcome:
Successful recovery of large portion of stolen assets; hackers Ilya Lichtenstein and Heather Morgan convicted. Lichtenstein got 5 years in prison (2024), following the recovery operations.
The case sets precedent for enforcement of crypto theft and asset recovery at a large scale.
Significance:
A landmark in digital‑asset theft: shows high value is at stake and law‑enforcement capability increasing.
Reinforces that blockchain tokens are treated as valuable property in enforcement efforts.
Highlights that theft via blockchain is not immune to prosecution—they can be traced, seized, prosecuted.
Demonstrates interplay of technology (blockchain analytics) and law in combating digital asset theft.
Key Themes & Analytical Insights
From the above cases, several overarching insights emerge:
a) Digital‐asset theft is increasingly prosecuted
Blockchain hacks, smart‑contract exploits, wallet seed‑phrase theft, insider trading of NFTs—all show digital asset theft is being treated as serious crime by prosecutors. Cases 1, 2, 4, 6 exemplify this.
b) AI/automation enhance both theft risk and detection
The theft side: smart contracts, automation, bots, algorithmic manipulation (Case 1, 4) show how automation aids theft.
The detection side: blockchain analytics (Case 6) enable tracking and seizure of stolen assets, often using algorithmic methods.
c) Property‑rights definition is crucial
Case 3 (Germany) highlights legal gaps when statutes define theft as “movable things” and digital tokens are not classified as such. Without property‑rights clarity, prosecutions may fail.
d) Smart‑contract & DeFi exploits blur “theft” and “fraud”
Money may be taken via protocol design vulnerabilities rather than classic hacking. This challenges definitions of “unauthorised access” or “deception”. Case 4 is a strong example.
e) Cross‑chain, multi‑jurisdiction complexity
Digital asset theft often spans blockchains, countries, wallets, mixers. Coordinated enforcement and crypto‑forensics are needed (Cases 1, 6).
f) Legal frameworks still adapting
The NFT insider‑trading appeal (Case 5) and Germany’s loophole (Case 3) show laws may not yet fully cover digital‐asset theft/fraud. Legislators and courts are playing catch‑up.
g) High‑value nature & impetus for regulatory reform
The amounts stolen are large (US$ millions to billions). This drives law‑enforcement prioritisation, asset‐recovery efforts and regulatory attention to digital asset crime.
Conclusion
Digital asset theft facilitated by blockchain (and increasingly assisted by automation/AI) is a major and growing area of criminal law. The six cases above illustrate:
How theft of tokens, smart‑contract exploits, wallet seed phrase access and DeFi manipulations are being prosecuted.
How legal challenges (property classification, code vs law, jurisdiction, evidence) are being exposed.
That AI/automation serve dual roles: enabling theft and aiding detection.
The urgent need for legal systems to update statutes/definitions to keep pace with digital/crypto asset crime.
RELATED Blog
comments