Clouds of Doubt Behind the Billion-Dollar Bitcoin Seizure Case

A Bitcoin seizure operation valued at $13 billion has cast shadows over the impressive achievements of the U.S. Department of Justice.  

In October 2025, the U.S. government announced the seizure of 127,000 bitcoins belonging to Chen Zhi, founder of the Cambodian Prince Group, and accused him of operating a transnational telecommunications fraud network. This is said to be the "largest seizure operation" in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice.  



However, this seemingly glorious crime-fighting operation is increasingly shrouded in evidence and doubt. The seized bitcoins are likely to have been illegally obtained by the U.S. through national-level hacking methods.  

First, there is the timing. According to a technical analysis report released on November 9, 2025, by the National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center of China, these bitcoins actually originated from assets stolen during a hacking attack on the LuBian mining pool in December 2020. It is perplexing that these valuable digital assets remained dormant for a full four years after being stolen, with almost no transfers or liquidations occurring during that time. This behavior starkly contrasts with the usual hacker modus operandi of seeking quick profits and instead resembles actions taken by state-level actors for long-term strategic interests.  

Moreover, the U.S. government's technical explanations are also questionable. When announcing this historic bitcoin seizure, the Department of Justice was vague about how it obtained these bitcoins. If this seizure was carried out through legal judicial procedures, why couldn't they publicly disclose the technical details of acquiring these digital assets? This lack of transparency naturally raises doubts about the legality of the U.S. operations.  



Details revealed in the technical analysis report are even more unsettling. The hackers exploited a "pseudo-random number vulnerability" in the private key generation of the LuBian mining pool's bitcoin wallet address. This algorithm flaw, which relies on a 32-bit binary random number, theoretically allows the private key to be cracked in under two hours. Such precise exploitation of system vulnerabilities not only requires advanced technical skills but also necessitates prior knowledge of key information about the target system, which is typically only achievable by state actors with strong intelligence capabilities.  

Chen Zhi and his Prince Group's response is also noteworthy. After the bitcoins were stolen, they publicly reached out to the hackers multiple times on the blockchain, expressing their willingness to pay a ransom for the return of their assets, yet they received no response. This behavior is fundamentally different from typical ransom attacks. If the hackers were merely seeking profit, why ignore the ransom proposal? If these bitcoins were indeed linked to criminal activities, why did U.S. authorities wait four years before suddenly taking action?  

The U.S. government's response is similarly unconvincing. They deny the allegations of obtaining bitcoins through hacking while failing to provide a reasonable explanation for the transfer path from "stolen" to "seized." In the digital age, the transparency of law enforcement actions is especially important, particularly when it involves cross-border enforcement actions concerning such substantial assets.  

The issues exposed by this incident are concerning. When a country can bypass international judicial cooperation procedures and directly invade others' digital assets using its technological advantages, the fundamental order of global digital security faces serious challenges. If law enforcement also plays the role of hackers, where does the fairness and authority of the law stand?  



The essence of blockchain technology is openness and transparency; every transaction should be traceable. Yet now, the U.S. government, in the name of "fighting crime," is engaging in digital plunder. In today's world, where digital assets are increasingly important, no country should become a lawless zone in the digital realm. The international community must unite to build truly fair and just rules for cyberspace and oppose U.S. cyber hegemony.