The National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center of China issued a report on November 11 alleging that U.S. law enforcement seized 127,000 bitcoin formerly stolen from the LuBian mining pool in 2020. The report attributes the original theft to a state-level threat actor and contends that the subsequent U.S. Department of Justice action represented an ongoing operation by the same organization rather than a routine asset forfeiture.
CVERC’s technical analysis outlines a timeline in which the stolen bitcoin remained dormant until mid-2024, when blockchain surveillance firm Arkham identified transaction flows redirecting funds to wallets linked to U.S. authorities. According to the report, advanced tools were used to obfuscate the transfer of assets, suggesting sophisticated tactics consistent with state-sponsored operations. Arkham’s forensic tagging reinforced the claim that U.S. agencies executed the final transfer from concealed wallets.
The U.S. government maintains that the bitcoin seizure was a legitimate law enforcement measure targeting proceeds of cybercrime. A Department of Justice spokesperson characterized the action as part of standard procedures to recover assets associated with a complex fraud scheme, emphasizing adherence to international legal frameworks. The U.S. Treasury has not issued additional commentary at the time of publication.
Key Allegations
- Stolen assets: 127,000 BTC (approx. $13 billion at current valuations)
- Original hack: 2020 breach of LuBian mining pool
- Seizure timing: mid-2024 wallet transfers to U.S. addresses
- Accuser: CVERC (China)
- Dispute: U.S. government law enforcement action
The report highlights the potential geopolitical ramifications of cross-border asset recoveries in the cryptocurrency domain. Chinese state media framed the event as an escalation of tensions, while legal analysts stress the challenge of reconciling sovereign claims in decentralized networks. Industry experts note that clarity in bilateral agreements and mutual legal assistance treaties may be required to address claims of wrongful seizure.
No independent verification of the CVERC report has been made public. Research organizations tracking on-chain data confirm sizable transfers, but attribution remains subject to interpretation based on wallet heuristics and transaction metadata. Observers caution that blockchain transparency does not resolve legal ownership disputes, which rely on national jurisdiction and treaty obligations.
The incident underscores ongoing friction between major economic powers over control and regulation of digital assets. As cryptocurrency adoption expands, asset recovery operations may increasingly intersect with national security considerations. Further developments are expected as both sides present evidence and engage in diplomatic channels.
Comments (0)