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

TheCryptoTimesPublicado a 2025-08-18Actualizado a 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



Criptos en tendencia

Lecturas Relacionadas

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.

marsbitHace 58 min(s)

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

marsbitHace 58 min(s)

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.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

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.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot

Artículos destacados

Cómo comprar ONE

¡Bienvenido a HTX.com! Hemos hecho que comprar Harmony (ONE) sea simple y conveniente. Sigue nuestra guía paso a paso para iniciar tu viaje de criptos.Paso 1: crea tu cuenta HTXUtiliza tu correo electrónico o número de teléfono para registrarte y obtener una cuenta gratuita en HTX. Experimenta un proceso de registro sin complicaciones y desbloquea todas las funciones.Obtener mi cuentaPaso 2: ve a Comprar cripto y elige tu método de pagoTarjeta de crédito/débito: usa tu Visa o Mastercard para comprar Harmony (ONE) al instante.Saldo: utiliza fondos del saldo de tu cuenta HTX para tradear sin problemas.Terceros: hemos agregado métodos de pago populares como Google Pay y Apple Pay para mejorar la comodidad.P2P: tradear directamente con otros usuarios en HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): ofrecemos servicios personalizados y tipos de cambio competitivos para los traders.Paso 3: guarda tu Harmony (ONE)Después de comprar tu Harmony (ONE), guárdalo en tu cuenta HTX. Alternativamente, puedes enviarlo a otro lugar mediante transferencia blockchain o utilizarlo para tradear otras criptomonedas.Paso 4: tradear Harmony (ONE)Tradear fácilmente con Harmony (ONE) en HTX's mercado spot. Simplemente accede a tu cuenta, selecciona tu par de trading, ejecuta tus trades y monitorea en tiempo real. Ofrecemos una experiencia fácil de usar tanto para principiantes como para traders experimentados.

307 Vistas totalesPublicado en 2024.12.12Actualizado en 2026.06.02

Cómo comprar ONE

Discusiones

Bienvenido a la comunidad de HTX. Aquí puedes mantenerte informado sobre los últimos desarrollos de la plataforma y acceder a análisis profesionales del mercado. A continuación se presentan las opiniones de los usuarios sobre el precio de ONE (ONE).

活动图片