Cryptocurrency Fraud Federal Charges

Federal Prosecutors Have Settled on Cryptocurrency as Their Preferred Theater of Enforcement

The arithmetic of federal cryptocurrency fraud prosecution has become, in the span of three years, less an exercise in legal theory than in institutional will. Between the March 2024 sentencing of Sam Bankman-Fried to 25 years in federal prison and the June 2025 civil forfeiture of $225.3 million in cryptocurrency traced to fraudulent investment platforms, the Department of Justice seized, charged, and convicted at a pace that would have seemed implausible in 2021. One does not need to admire the government’s methods to recognize their seriousness. The question for anyone facing federal cryptocurrency fraud charges is no longer whether prosecutors understand the technology. It is whether the accused understands the sentence.

Wire Fraud Absorbs Everything

The federal statute most frequently applied to cryptocurrency fraud is 18 U.S.C. Section 1343, the wire fraud provision, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment and fines of $250,000. When the scheme touches a financial institution, that ceiling rises to 30 years. Because every cryptocurrency transaction travels through interstate wire communications by its nature, the jurisdictional hook is automatic; prosecutors need not strain to establish it. The elegance of the wire fraud statute, from the government’s perspective, is its breadth. A scheme to defraud, transmitted by wire, in interstate commerce. That formulation has absorbed pump and dump operations on decentralized exchanges, fraudulent initial coin offerings, romance scams conducted through encrypted messaging applications, and the misappropriation of customer deposits by exchange operators. The statute does not care what the asset is. It cares about the lie.

Layered on top of wire fraud, prosecutors routinely charge conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. Section 371, securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and money laundering under 18 U.S.C. Section 1956. The money laundering statute alone carries up to 20 years and permits fines of $500,000 or twice the value of the laundered property, whichever is greater. In fiscal year 2024, federal courts obtained 1,095 money laundering convictions, a 45 percent increase from 2020, with an average sentence of 62 months. The stacking of these charges is not incidental. It is architectural.

What the Bankman-Fried Sentence Established

We should be precise about what the United States v. Bankman-Fried prosecution accomplished beyond the conviction of a single defendant. The sentence of 25 years, imposed by Judge Lewis Kaplan in the Southern District of New York, was less than the 40 to 50 years prosecutors sought but far more than the defense requested. Kaplan noted that Bankman-Fried posed a future risk and had shown no remorse. The forfeiture order reached $11 billion. Caroline Ellison, the former chief executive of Alameda Research, received two years. Gary Wang and Nishad Singh, who cooperated fully, received time served.

That gradient from 25 years to time served was the sentence’s true message. The Department of Justice demonstrated, with a specificity it had not previously achieved in cryptocurrency cases, the value it assigns to cooperation. A defendant who provides substantial assistance and does so early will receive a sentence measured in months. A defendant who proceeds to trial and loses will receive a sentence measured in decades. Bankman-Fried’s appeal, filed in April 2024 on grounds of judicial bias, was argued before the Second Circuit in November 2025. A ruling remains pending as of this writing. But the sentence has already reshaped the calculus of every cryptocurrency fraud defendant in the federal system. That was its purpose.

The Institutional Machinery Has Not Contracted

In April 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum titled “Ending Regulation by Prosecution,” which disbanded the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team and directed the DOJ to cease using criminal enforcement as a substitute for regulatory frameworks. Some defendants’ attorneys read the memorandum as a signal of retreat. That reading is incorrect.

The memorandum explicitly preserved and prioritized the prosecution of individuals who victimize digital asset investors and those who use digital assets to further criminal conduct, including terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and human trafficking.

What changed was the target, not the intensity. The DOJ will no longer bring cases against exchanges for failing to register or for alleged violations of sanctions compliance where no specific fraud victim exists. But where there is a victim, where there is a lie, where there is a loss, the full apparatus of federal prosecution remains intact. The cases that followed the memorandum confirm this. In March 2025, the DOJ unsealed a racketeering indictment against more than a dozen individuals who used social engineering to steal $263 million in cryptocurrency from wallet holders. In June 2025, prosecutors filed the $225.3 million forfeiture action against funds traced to so called pig butchering investment scams, the largest cryptocurrency seizure in United States Secret Service history. Matthew Galeotti, head of the Criminal Division, personally announced the action.

The SEC, for its part, created a Crypto Task Force in January 2025 under Commissioner Hester Peirce. The agency dismissed several high profile enforcement actions initiated under former Chair Gensler, including matters involving Coinbase, Binance, and Gemini. Total new SEC enforcement actions in fiscal year 2025 fell to 313, down 27 percent from the prior year. But in December 2025, the SEC charged three fraudulent crypto trading platforms and four investment clubs with defrauding retail investors of more than $14 million through AI generated investment tips disseminated on WhatsApp. The pattern is the same as the DOJ’s. Regulatory overreach has receded. Fraud prosecution has not.

The Sentences Are Not Theoretical

I want to place several numbers beside one another because the tendency, when discussing federal sentencing in the abstract, is to treat the guidelines as a range one might negotiate around. In October 2024, Juan Tacuri, a senior promoter of the Forcount cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme, received the statutory maximum of 240 months in the Southern District of New York. The scheme targeted Spanish speaking populations in the United States. David Carmona, founder of the IcomTech Ponzi scheme, received 121 months. Daren Li, a dual national of China and St. Kitts and Nevis, was sentenced in absentia to 20 years for his role in a $73 million international cryptocurrency investment conspiracy operated from scam centers in Cambodia; he cut off his ankle monitor and absconded in December 2025.

Sam Lee, alleged orchestrator of the $1.89 billion HyperFund pyramid scheme, was charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud. The CryptoFX scheme ensnared more than 40,000 predominantly Latino investors across three countries for losses exceeding $300 million; the SEC charged 17 individuals. These are not anomalies selected for rhetorical effect. They are the ordinary business of the federal courts in 2025.

And the loss calculations in federal sentencing are not merciful. Under Section 2B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the base offense level for fraud ranges from 6 to 36 before adjustments. A loss exceeding $9.5 million adds 18 levels. A loss exceeding $25 million adds 20. A loss exceeding $65 million adds 22. The number of victims, the sophistication of the scheme, the defendant’s role as organizer or leader, the use of mass marketing, the targeting of vulnerable populations: each of these factors adds levels. A defendant who goes to trial, loses, and is found to have caused losses of $50 million to hundreds of victims can face a guidelines calculation that exceeds the statutory maximum. That is not unusual. That is the system operating as designed.

Pig Butchering and the Industrialization of Fraud

The term is crude, and that is appropriate, because the crime it describes treats human beings as commodities twice. First the victims, cultivated through fabricated romantic relationships on dating applications and social media before being directed to invest in fictitious cryptocurrency platforms. Then the perpetrators themselves, many of whom are trafficking victims forced to operate from labor camps in Southeast Asia. In October 2025, federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment against Chen Zhi, a Chinese national who built the Cambodia based Prince Group, alleging a scheme that generated $15 billion in fraudulent cryptocurrency proceeds. Prosecutors called it the largest forfeiture action in Department of Justice history. Zhi was arrested by Cambodian authorities in January 2026 and extradited to China.

The scale of pig butchering prosecutions has forced a recalibration in how the government structures these cases. The Secret Service, the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division now coordinate on cryptocurrency tracing with a fluency that did not exist four years ago. Blockchain analytics firms provide transaction mapping that prosecutors present to juries as confidently as they once presented bank records. The $61 million USDT seizure in North Carolina, the $112 million recovery by the FBI Phoenix field office, the $225.3 million forfeiture in the District of Columbia: these are not isolated victories. They are the product of an enforcement infrastructure that has learned, through repetition, how to follow cryptocurrency across wallets, mixers, and bridges.

One should ask whether the government’s capacity to trace and seize has outpaced its capacity to prevent. It has. But that observation is of limited consolation to the defendant.

DEFENSE TEAM SPOTLIGHT

Todd Spodek

Lead Attorney & Founder

Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.

NY Bar Admitted Multi-State Licensed Federal Courts

Meet the Full Team

The Defense Problem Is Specific

Every federal cryptocurrency fraud case presents a defense challenge that traditional white collar cases do not. The blockchain is a public ledger. Every transaction is recorded, timestamped, and permanent. In a bank fraud case, the prosecution may struggle to reconstruct the flow of funds through multiple accounts, jurisdictions, and intermediaries. In a cryptocurrency case, that reconstruction is often trivial. The anonymity that defendants believed protected them at the time of the offense becomes, at trial, a thin pseudonymity that federal agents can and do pierce through exchange records, IP logs, metadata, and cooperating witnesses who provide private keys.

This does not mean that defenses do not exist. The wire fraud statute requires proof that the defendant acted with specific intent to defraud. A cryptocurrency venture that failed is not, by itself, a fraud; the government must demonstrate that the defendant knew the representations were false at the time they were made. The line between an optimistic projection and a material misrepresentation remains, in certain cases, genuinely contested. Market manipulation charges in decentralized finance protocols raise novel questions about what constitutes a “scheme” when the protocol’s own rules permit the challenged conduct. And the government’s theory of loss often overstates the amount attributable to any single defendant, particularly in conspiracy cases involving dozens of participants.

But these defenses require early identification, preservation of exculpatory blockchain evidence, and the retention of counsel who can read both a sentencing guidelines worksheet and a block explorer. The window for meaningful intervention in a federal cryptocurrency case is narrow. It begins, in most instances, before the indictment. By the time the case reaches a courtroom, the government’s forensic work is largely complete. What remains is the question of how the evidence is characterized and, if the evidence is strong, whether cooperation or trial is the path that produces the least severe sentence.

Spring, and the federal courts are conducting more cryptocurrency fraud trials than in any prior year. The Department of Justice has not retreated from this category of prosecution. It has refined its approach, shed the cases it cannot win, and concentrated resources on the cases it can. A person under investigation or facing charges in a federal cryptocurrency fraud matter should speak with a defense attorney who practices in this area before responding to any government inquiry. That is not a suggestion offered for its own sake. It is the single decision most likely to affect the outcome.