Crypto Influencer Gets 1-Year Prison Term in $3.5M Mining Scam

TheCryptoTimesPublished on 2025-08-18Last updated on 2025-08-18

Charles O. Parks III, a crypto influencer known as “CP3O,” was sentenced to one year and one day in prison for a cryptojacking scheme on August 15, 2025. He was convicted for defrauding cloud computing providers of over $3.5 million in resources.

The DOJ press release said that Parks used fake companies, including “MultiMillionaire LLC” and “CP3O LLC,” to gain access to cloud systems. Between January and August 2021, he secretly mined nearly $1 million worth of Ether (ETH), Litecoin (LTC), and Monero (XMR). 

How the Scheme Worked?

Parks told one provider he was building an online training company for media and technology courses serving 10,000 students. The DOJ also said, “In reality, there was no training company, and there were no students.” Resources were instead used for crypto mining. When providers raised concerns, Parks deflected questions and continued exploiting the systems. Moreover, he also promoted a “MultiMillionaire Mentality” online and offered coaching subscriptions payable in his own token. 

“Charles Parks manipulated technology, stole millions in computer resources, and illegally mined cryptocurrency — and today’s sentencing holds him fully accountable,” said NYPD commissioner Jessica S. Tisch.

Prosecutors said Parks laundered the mined crypto through exchanges, an NFT marketplace, payment processors, and banks. He used the funds to buy a Mercedes-Benz and jewelry, as well as sponsor first-class travel and accommodations. The April 2024 indictment revealed Parks had accounts with cloud companies in Seattle and Redmond, both defrauded.

Sentencing and Wider Impact

As part of Parks’ one year and one day in prison sentence, he must forfeit $500,000 and his Mercedes-Benz. Additionally, its restitution will be determined later.

The Parks case has highlighted the risks in crypto. CertiK, a blockchain security firm, says scams, hacks, and wallet breaches caused over $2.2 billion in losses in the first half of 2025. This case shows how authorities are actively holding people accountable for using crypto and technology to defraud users and firms.

Also Read: North Korea Linked to £17m Crypto Heist That Collapsed UK Firm



Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit59m ago

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit59m ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit1h ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit1h ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit1h ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

How to Buy ONE

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing Harmony (ONE) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy Harmony (ONE) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your Harmony (ONE)After purchasing your Harmony (ONE), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade Harmony (ONE)Easily trade Harmony (ONE) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

4.1k Total ViewsPublished 2024.03.29Updated 2026.06.02

How to Buy ONE

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ONE (ONE) are presented below.

活动图片