In early 2025, a paper statement from the U.S. Department of Justice shocked the world: the confiscation of 127,000 Bitcoins associated with the Cambodian Chinese, Zhi Chen, worth about $15 billion. This number not only set the world¡¯s highest record of one-time confiscation of cryptocurrency assets by law enforcement agencies, but also raised widespread concern about the story behind it. An ordinary guy from Fujian, China, how to establish a huge criminal empire in Cambodia; why the ¡°security secret¡± Bitcoin can be confiscated by law enforcement agencies; and as the main victim of this case, China, why the related losses are difficult to obtain compensation.

Image source: Visual China-VCG41N1309760279

1. "Prince" Chen Zhi's criminal empire

Chen Zhi, born in Fukuoka in 1987, that Chen Zhi was engaged in small such as internet bars in Fukuoka during the youth period. After 2011, Chen Zhi began to move overseas, choosing the Cambodian market with a relatively loose investment environment, a lower threshold for foreign investment, and quickly cut into the real estate sector. In February 2014, Chen Zhi joined the Cambodian nationality through investment immigration, founded the Prince Group in 2015 and rapidly expanded. Chen Zhi's business empire has three main companies, namely the Prince Real Estate Group, the Sun Sun Sun Sun Sun Sun Real Estate Group, and the Prince Bank, and subsequently expanded its business map to many areas such as consumer retail, becoming one of the most influential Chinese traders in Cambodia. At the same time

However, there has been a long-standing controversy about the source of Chen Zhi's "first pot of gold", the group's capital chain and business compliance. In March 2017, Chen Zhi established Jinbei Investment Co., Ltd., and then reorganized it into Jinbei Group (which was also accused of engaging in criminal acts such as fraud and gambling). Since May 2020, the Chinese police have set up a special task force to investigate Prince Group. Courts in seven different provinces have ruled that the grassroots and related employees of Prince Group are guilty of gambling and money laundering crimes, but Prince Group and Chen Zhi himself have not been prosecuted, claiming that the investigation was caused by criminal impersonation. In July 2022, the court of Wangcang County, Sichuan Province issued a statement saying that the Taizi Group has illegally made more than 5 billion yuan from gambling activities since 2016. In mid-October 2025, the U.S. judicial department prosecuted Chen Zhi on suspicion of fraud and money laundering, accusing him of operating "a huge online fraud empire" and allegedly manipulating a series of large-scale cryptocurrency fraud cases, even involving forced labor. Subsequently, in a joint operation between the United States and the United Kingdom, some 127,271 bitcoins (worth more than $14 billion) held by Chen Zhi were seized. At the same time, the U.S. Treasury Department also added 146 individuals and entities associated with Prince Group to the sanctions list, and all their assets in the UK and 19 properties in London were frozen. In addition, Thailand set up a "Task Force to Combat Telecom Fraud and Cyber Financial Crimes" to investigate Chen Zhi's transnational fraud case, and the Singapore police also began to investigate Prince Group. But up to now, Chen Zhi himself has not been detained.

Prince Group's "Mobile Phone Farm". Photo source: Civil confiscation indictment

2. The shattering of Bitcoin's "security myth" and the new paradigm of digital law enforcement

The most surprising thing about this case is that the U.S. Department of Justice successfully completed the confiscation of this huge amount of Bitcoin without arresting Chen Zhi himself and having no substantial evidence of intercepting his private key (the cryptocurrency private key is the only credential to access and control the corresponding cryptocurrency assets, and its core function is to "sign" the transaction to prove that you are the legal owner of the corresponding cryptocurrency address). This operation also exposed the fragile nature of Bitcoin's so-called "anonymity". The core feature of the Bitcoin network lies in the complete disclosure and non-tampering nature of its ledger, which will be transformed into a sharp weapon for tracking assets under certain conditions.In this case, the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Panel (NCCE) under the U.S. Department of Justice intervened, joining Chainalysis, TRM Labs, CipherTrace and other professional agencies to develop a chain of traceables. Investigators used a cluster algorithm to conduct a panoramic analysis of the 2020 LuBian mining company¡¯s stolen Bitcoin flows, and found that the assets began frequently cross-flows with the ¡°killing discs¡± fraudulent funds in the middle of 2024 and eventually pointed to 12 core wallet addresses. Through the analysis of the KYC data, cross-border money flows records and social media clues, the prince group¡¯s organizational structure was gradually deleted and Chen was confirmed as the network¡¯s final beneficiary

This time, U.S. law enforcement agencies have adopted a "contactless confiscation" model. Although Bitcoin, as a cryptocurrency itself, is "decentralized" (in the traditional financial system, transactions often require banks or clearing institutions as intermediaries, and in the "decentralized" cryptocurrency trading system, cryptocurrency transactions can be completed directly among users, without a single central server or manager, that is to say, it is almost impossible to intercept the cryptocurrency in the cryptocurrency wallet as long as the private key of the wallet cannot be obtained). The United States, by virtue of its dominant position in the global financial system, forced these exchanges to cooperate in freezing and handing over the assets involved. This enforcement model essentially sets regulations between cryptocurrencies and the real financial system, effectively cutting off the circulation path of illegal funds and completely dismantling the myth of Bitcoin as a ¡°grey asset haven.¡±With the central position of the U.S. dollar in the global payment system, the U.S. is able to put substantial pressure on global trading platforms by controlling the clearing and settlement links of transactions. Any exchange that refuses to comply with U.S. judicial orders may be cut off from the U.S. dollar clearing channel, thus losing its connection to the international financial system. This institutional deterrence is precisely an important factor in the U.S. achievement of its ¡°long-arm jurisdiction.¡±

At the same time, with the detection of the "Chen Zhi case", It also marks that transnational law enforcement has also entered a new era with technology at the core.¡£Compared with the traditional law enforcement mode, which relies on the offline law enforcement path of arresting suspects and strictly collecting evidence, this new type of "digital law enforcement" pays more attention to tracking and blocking the flow of funds. The technical capabilities demonstrated by the United States in this operation include not only cutting-edge blockchain analysis technology, but also the control of global financial networks. When investigators locked the target address through on-chain analysis, a U.S. court issued a directive to cryptocurrency exchanges worldwide to freeze any assets flowing from the address. As most of the above-mentioned exchanges are closely linked to the US dollar system, they have to cooperate with the relevant requirements of the US judicial department. This law enforcement model based on technological advantages and financial hegemony is reshaping the governance pattern of transnational financial crimes.

Image source: Visual China-VCG111344147738

Difficulties and challenges in the transnational law enforcement game

One thought-provoking question is why China, the main victim, failed to take the money back in the first place in this case?This reflects the real difficulties of transnational law enforcement in the digital age. At the technical level.The United States has the world's top blockchain analysis companies such as Chainalysis and CipherTrace. These companies have cooperated in depth with law enforcement agencies to form a strong technical support system. In contrast, China has relatively insufficient technical accumulation and experience in the field of blockchain data analysis, making it difficult to achieve the same level of on-chain tracking capabilities. This technological gap is not only reflected in data analysis capabilities, but also in the understanding and control of the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem.

The graph drawn by the FBI shows that funds from the Bitcoin mining pool were scattered into 22 separate addresses, then reassembled into one address and transferred to Chen¡¯s portion of the wallet address.

Secondly, at the judicial level.There are differences between the two countries. The "long-arm jurisdiction" principle in the U.S. judicial system, as long as the case involves U.S. citizens or U.S. dollar transactions, can advocate jurisdiction. This domestic law-based extracurricular application allows U.S. law enforcement agencies to act quickly. Compared to the U.S., China emphasizes the principle of equality of judicial sovereignty, relying mainly on traditional international judicial assistance channels, through diplomatic letters, evidence exchange and other procedures, requesting the asset country to cooperate, the process is relatively tricky and time consuming. This difference not only reflects the difference in the legal system, but also reflects the difference between countries in the rule of law concept and practice.

At the same time, this case also exposed the shortcomings of the current international rule system in protecting the rights and interests of transnational victims.According to relevant regulations of the U.S. Department of Justice, confiscated assets will be used first to compensate victims in the country, and the rest will be included in the national treasury to support law enforcement activities. This means that it will be difficult for China people who have been deceived in this case to obtain compensation. Although compensation may theoretically be sought through diplomatic consultations or transnational litigation, in the current international environment, these avenues face huge obstacles. This dilemma not only occurs to victims in China, but has become a common problem in global transnational crime governance. When a country's law enforcement actions can have a global impact, how to protect the legitimate rights and interests of other injured countries has become an urgent issue for the international community.

From a more macro perspective, the "Chen Zhi case" has had a profound impact on the criminal ecology of Southeast Asia. The successful cracking of this case has strongly deterred criminal groups entrenched in Cambodia, Myanmar and other places, forcing them to reassess the risks of using mainstream cryptocurrencies and may move to more hidden private currencies or underground cash economies. At the same time, after Cambodia strengthens regulatory pressure, some criminal activities may be transferred to other countries with relatively weak supervision, which will also bring new challenges to regional security. In addition, criminal groups may change their operating models from large-scale park operations to a smaller, decentralized "studio" model to reduce the risk of being "wiped out". These changes indicate that crime governance in Southeast Asia is entering a more complex phase.

The outcome of the "Chen Zhi case" is not only a powerful deterrent to criminal groups, but also exposes the challenges faced by emerging international rules in the digital age. In the context of rapid technological development, emerging technologies such as cryptocurrencies are changing the form and means of crime, while the international governance system is relatively lagging behind the changes in crime patterns. In the future, effectively responding to transnational crimes not only requires countries to improve their technical capabilities, but also to strengthen international cooperation and establish a fairer and more effective cooperation mechanism. For China, this case also provides important enlightenment. In the digital era, we must accelerate the improvement of technical capabilities in fields such as blockchain analysis and digital currency supervision, and at the same time actively participate in the formulation of international rules. Only then can we take the initiative in the governance of transnational crimes and better protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens.

In short, the "Chen Zhi Case" is not only the end of a case, but also a microcosm of the evolution of transnational law enforcement in the digital era. It demonstrates how technology has changed law enforcement methods and reveals the shortcomings of the current international governance system. In this interconnected world, it is difficult for any country to remain alone. Only by strengthening international cooperation and jointly responding to challenges can we build a safer and more just international order. In the digital age, crime may have no borders, but justice should not stop at national borders.