Written by: Xiao Za Legal Team
The cases related to the Prince Group are deepening and expanding in scope. After the global law enforcement storm triggered by the Chen Zhi case has begun to subside, a deeper question has emerged: Have cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin quietly shifted from a "decentralized financial revolution" to the "infrastructure of a criminal economy"?
Today, the Sa Jie team will once again discuss this case with readers, analyzing the inseparable relationship between cryptocurrencies and illegal activities, as well as the future regulatory and developmental trends of cryptocurrencies through the following three questions.
With the U.S. Department of Justice filing criminal charges against Prince Group Chairman Chen Zhi and multiple countries simultaneously freezing related assets, this "crackdown on the crypto black market" spanning Southeast Asia and the West seems to have reached a pause. However, behind the noise, an unavoidable reality is forming: cryptocurrencies are becoming core tools for new types of transnational crime, deeply embedded in chains of telecom fraud, human trafficking, and money laundering. This not only threatens public safety but may fundamentally undermine the legitimacy of the cryptocurrency space.
1. Why have cryptocurrencies become the "preferred" choice for crime?
Cryptocurrencies have become the weapons for criminals to commit crimes and launder money mainly due to their convenience in the following aspects:
Convenient cross-border transactions. Cryptocurrencies can easily facilitate global transfers; by simply setting up a virtual currency wallet for peer-to-peer transactions, funds can be sent from Cambodia, routed through Singapore, and finally deposited into a wallet in Dubai, all without the need for any financial institution's approval. The global circulation and convertibility of Bitcoin provide a new "breeding ground" for money laundering crimes, and building "money laundering platforms" through cryptocurrencies has become a black and gray industrial chain for the flow of illegal funds.
High concealment. Traditional money laundering methods still face scrutiny and regulation from banks and financial institutions; while the transaction records of cryptocurrencies are publicly available on the blockchain, the identities of participants are usually anonymous, represented only by addresses. This allows criminals engaging in money laundering and other activities to easily hide their true identities.
Difficult regulatory control. The traditional financial system is subject to strict anti-money laundering regulations and monitoring, with financial institutions conducting real-time monitoring of large transactions and suspicious activities. Due to the decentralized and anonymous nature of cryptocurrencies, regulatory agencies find it challenging to implement effective control. Many criminals use investment management, token issuance financing, and internet financial innovation as a guise to hype hot concepts, packaging Bitcoin investment projects to engage in illegal fundraising. This is also a significant reason why Chen Zhi's gang has been difficult to thoroughly investigate and dismantle.
Irreversible transactions. The multi-party transaction nature of Bitcoin leads to intertwined funding chains, making it difficult to trace the flow of funds. Once a cryptocurrency transaction is completed, it is challenging to reverse or cancel it, and criminals often use "mixing" techniques to further obscure the original source of the funds and payment accounts. This increases the difficulty for judicial authorities to seize and freeze virtual funds, while also allowing criminals to operate more securely.
Although countries are currently aware of this trend in money laundering methods, they still face many challenges in regulation:
Inconsistent global regulatory standards: There are differences among countries regarding the legal attributes of cryptocurrencies, leading to inconsistent regulatory standards. Criminal organizations exploit these differences to evade regulation through offshore servers and multi-jurisdictional fund flows, making cross-border evidence collection and asset freezing difficult due to lengthy procedures and conflicting rules.
Increased difficulty in technical tracking: Blockchain technology has been distorted by criminals into a toolchain for crime, significantly reducing the effectiveness of traditional fund tracking methods, forcing law enforcement agencies to build more advanced on-chain data analysis systems.
2. Is there a "black eats black" situation between the U.S. government and the Prince Group?
The criminal nature of the Prince Group is indisputable; their actions far exceed ordinary financial crimes, forming a complex criminal network of "human trafficking - forced labor - crypto fraud - cross-border money laundering" that should be severely punished. However, if the U.S. indeed used hacking methods to preemptively seize Bitcoin to achieve the confiscation of the Prince Group's criminal proceeds, that would be another matter.
In this U.S. operation, on one hand, there is the application of its "long-arm jurisdiction" principle in the realm of digital assets and its legitimacy issues. The U.S. Department of Justice claims jurisdiction based on the "minimum contacts principle," asserting that as long as there is a slight connection between the criminal act and the U.S.—such as using U.S. technological infrastructure or involving the U.S. financial system—jurisdiction can be exercised. This move further amplifies the jurisdictional scope in the cryptocurrency field, effectively eroding the international legal principles based on territorial and personal jurisdiction, infringing upon the judicial sovereignty of countries like Cambodia where the actions occurred, and has been criticized as a form of legal expansionism relying on technological and financial hegemony.
On the other hand, the U.S. has adopted civil forfeiture procedures, directly suing the Bitcoin assets themselves, bypassing judicial control over the suspects, and this system implements a reversal of the burden of proof, requiring asset holders to prove their innocence, often adjudicated in the absence of the defendant, limiting their right to defense; the legal boundaries of new evidence collection methods such as on-chain evidence also lack clear judicial review. This "seize first, prove later" approach may constitute "judgment before trial," which, while pursuing law enforcement effectiveness, insufficiently protects individual procedural rights.
3. How should we view the market's doubts about Bitcoin's decentralization, anonymity, and security?
The operations of the Prince Group have already represented the "highest security configuration" in the cryptocurrency space: illicit funds are dispersed across multiple private wallets, completely detached from centralized exchanges, and are routed multiple times through Singapore servers and Dubai digital wallets. Yet, the U.S. Department of Justice was still able to connect scattered transaction records into a coherent map using blockchain analysis technology, accurately pinpointing the flow of funds.
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have long been labeled with "anonymity" and "censorship resistance," creating a market impression of being "untraceable and unconfiscatable." However, this incident has clearly shown that Bitcoin is not absolutely "safe," primarily reflected in the following aspects:
First, the essence of pseudo-anonymity: Although the blockchain does not directly record users' real information, all transactions are publicly traceable and permanently stored. Through clustering analysis, behavioral pattern recognition, and other on-chain analysis techniques, law enforcement agencies can effectively map the flow of funds and associate anonymous addresses with real identities.
Second, the relativity of security: The Bitcoin protocol itself is indeed secure, but its application ecosystem (such as exchanges and wallet services) carries risks of single points of failure. This case proves that once there are vulnerabilities in private key management, or if law enforcement agencies can take over private keys through physical or legal means, the security of assets can be completely compromised.
Third, the centralization bottleneck: Although cryptocurrencies aim for "decentralization," their connection points to the real economy (such as exchanges and custodial institutions) are often centralized and subject to regulation. These "choke points" provide openings for state intervention.
After this case, investors may face two opposing choices.
One is to lean towards regulated custodial services and financial products to ensure the safety of their digital assets;
The other is to seek stronger privacy protection technologies (such as zero-knowledge proofs and mixers), but these technologies may also face greater regulatory pressure.
In conclusion
The Chen Zhi case will eventually come to an end, but if the cryptocurrency industry cannot effectively sever its ties with the black market, what awaits it may not be the rise of "digital gold," but rather the stigmatization of "high-risk assets."
The future cryptocurrency space will no longer belong to the most anonymous individuals, but to the most compliant, transparent, and responsible builders. After all, in a rule-of-law society, there is no freedom without responsibility, nor safety without acknowledging risks.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
