China’s leading cybersecurity body has accused the United States of confiscating 127,272 bitcoins — roughly US$13 billion (about R$69 billion) — that it says were stolen in a December 2020 hack.
The claim, published by the China National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center (CVERC) on its WeChat account, names LuBian, once one of the world’s largest bitcoin mining operations, as the source of the lost funds. The CVERC said the theft does not resemble ordinary criminal theft for profit, but rather a precise, organized operation.
According to the CVERC, the bitcoins remained dormant for more than four years after the December 2020 incident. Chinese officials say the funds were moved in 2024, following a U.S. criminal filing. The agency argues the scale and method align more closely with a state-level or highly organized hacking effort than with opportunistic cybercriminal activity.
U.S. authorities and international actions
U.S. prosecutors, however, have treated the case as a law-enforcement seizure tied to an alleged criminal network. The Department of Justice says the quantity of bitcoins matches assets it confiscated from Chen Zhi, a figure connected to the Prince Group and accused of running scam centers based in Cambodia. U.S. officials have asserted that Chen was the owner of the wallet containing the seized coins.
Other jurisdictions also moved against the enterprise. Authorities in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan reportedly froze assets — collectively amounting to as much as R$2.6 billion — and detained roughly 25 people in related enforcement actions.
No clear, public link between LuBian and Chen Zhi has been established. Chinese authorities note that LuBian has no public ownership records but was, at its peak, a dominant miner. Analysts say LuBian once controlled about 6% of global hashing power and that its operations abruptly ceased in 2021 — a shutdown some observers associate with the 2020 incident.
Largest cryptocurrency seizure in history, says China
The CVERC characterized the U.S. confiscation as the largest of its kind, surpassing earlier high-profile seizures. It cited the U.K.’s 2015 confiscation of around US$6.7 billion, attributed to a criminal known as the “Queen of Bitcoins,” as the previous record.
Beijing’s public rebuke raises diplomatic and legal questions. Some analysts find the timing curious: a recent trade détente between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping has eased tensions on several fronts, making a public accusation about a U.S. law-enforcement action notable. Chinese officials have not provided evidence publicly linking Chen Zhi to LuBian beyond the coincidental alignment in the value of seized assets.
Complexities of governing digital assets
The episode underscores the legal and practical challenges of policing cryptocurrencies across borders. Unlike fiat currencies, crypto holdings can be moved and controlled without clear territoriality, complicating the coordination that would typically accompany the seizure and transfer of conventional assets. Chinese commentators noted that, had the funds been held in a bank account, international cooperation with the asset’s country of origin would have been necessary.
LuBian’s history of international presence further complicates matters. The mining firm reportedly operated in Iran and China, though Beijing banned most cryptocurrency trading and mining activity in 2021. Chen Zhi, by contrast, is a Chinese national presently residing in Cambodia and is likely registered there. Authorities in multiple countries pursued legal and financial measures against his alleged network.
What’s next
At present, the dispute is primarily one of competing narratives: the Chinese cybersecurity agency’s public accusation versus U.S. law enforcement’s claim of a legitimate seizure tied to an alleged criminal enterprise. Neither side has released a comprehensive, jointly verifiable chain of custody for the bitcoins in question.
Experts say further clarity will depend on detailed forensic blockchain analysis and — crucially — the sharing of prosecutorial evidence across jurisdictions. For now, the incident highlights how the borderless nature of cryptocurrencies can produce friction between states and law-enforcement agencies when vast sums are at stake.
