China Breaks Cryptocurrency Theft Ring Worth Over $140 Million, Arrests 5 Suspects

Gate News message, April 27 — A cybercrime unit in Wuhan, China’s Hubei Province, has dismantled a cryptocurrency theft ring involving counterfeit wallet applications, with investigations revealing over 100 million yuan (approximately $14 million) in illicit proceeds. Five suspects have been arrested and prosecuted.

The case began in early 2024 when a victim lost over 300,000 yuan in virtual currency after downloading a fake wallet app. Police officer Guo Tingyu, a former software engineer, led the investigation by analyzing three key dimensions: virtual currency distribution addresses, the counterfeit app’s backend code, and fund flows. After nearly 70 days of analysis, he identified suspects from the app’s source code. The fraudulent application bypassed app store security checks and accumulated over 10,000 downloads.

In February 2025, Guo also responded to a ransomware attack on a major equipment design company, recovering over 400 gigabytes of encrypted core design data and preventing potential damages exceeding several million yuan. To date, Guo has participated in solving two ministry-level cases and six provincial-level cases, with over a dozen cryptocurrency-related crime investigations.

Disclaimer: The information on this page may come from third parties and does not represent the views or opinions of Gate. The content displayed on this page is for reference only and does not constitute any financial, investment, or legal advice. Gate does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information and shall not be liable for any losses arising from the use of this information. Virtual asset investments carry high risks and are subject to significant price volatility. You may lose all of your invested principal. Please fully understand the relevant risks and make prudent decisions based on your own financial situation and risk tolerance. For details, please refer to Disclaimer.
Comment
0/400
WangWang6666vip
· 04-27 02:48
Is it still considered invalid?
View OriginalReply0