NanoBit加密货币骗局以美国SEC胜诉并获赔552万美元告终——详情解析

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-06-30Last updated on 2026-06-30

Abstract

美国证券交易委员会(SEC)在对加密货币平台NanoBit的诉讼中获胜。SEC指控NanoBit及其关联方在2023年9月至2024年6月期间实施“杀猪盘”诈骗,通过WhatsApp等通讯应用接触受害者,利用虚假的加密货币首次代币发行项目承诺高额回报以骗取信任,并谎称其关联公司NanobitUS Securities是SEC注册经纪商。 2024年6月29日,SEC宣布了这一胜利。此前,美国纽约东区联邦地区法院对涉及NanoBit欺诈案的两名个人和四家实体作出了最终判决。法官指出,NanoBit平台并未发生真实交易,投资者资金被转入香港银行账户,且数十万美元的加密资产被挪用。 除NanoBit外,被告还包括Radiant Horizons Limited、Sweet Karma Fashion Inc.、Zhao Tropical Deli Inc.以及个人Jiajie Liu和Hua Zhao。法院判决永久禁止被告违反美国证券法中的反欺诈条款,并责令他们支付总计约552万美元的罚金,其中包括追缴非法所得、判决前利息和民事罚款。其中NanoBit被罚约180万美元,其他三家实体各被罚超118万美元。 法官认定被告故意缺席,未提出有效抗辩,若不作出缺席判决,SEC将遭受不公损害。

美国证券交易委员会(SEC)对NanoBit的诉讼终于获胜。根据案情,SEC指控被告在2023年9月至2024年6月期间,运作了一个“杀猪盘”骗局。据报道,诈骗者使用WhatsApp等通讯应用程序与受害者建立联系,以获取其信任并诱使他们投资NanoBit。

事实上,为了使自己看起来合法,NanoBit推广虚假的加密货币首次代币发行,并承诺异常高的回报。该公司还谎称其关联公司NanobitUS Securities是SEC注册的经纪商。

SEC基于什么理由赢得了对NanoBit的诉讼?

6月29日,SEC宣布了其胜利。这一声明是在美国纽约东区地方法院对NanoBit欺诈案涉及的两名个人和四家组织作出终审判决后近两周发布的。

对此,美国地区法官Sanket J. Bulsara评论道:

据称,NanoBit平台上并未发生任何真实交易,投资者的资金实际上流向了骗局的参与者,这些人将超过200万美元电汇至香港的银行账户,并挪用了价值数十万美元的投资者加密货币资产。

除NanoBit外,SEC还对Radiant Horizons Limited、Sweet Karma Fashion Inc.和Zhao Tropical Deli Inc.胜诉。此外,两名个人,Jiajie Liu和Hua Zhao,也因未对监管机构的诉讼作出回应而被包含在判决中。

综合考虑后,法院的最终判决包括永久禁止所有被告违反美国证券法中的重要反欺诈条款。

对NanoBit及其他方施加的罚款

因此,被告被勒令支付总计近552万美元的财务罚款。这包括判决前利息(用于补偿其持有非法所得期间的损失)、旨在惩罚和威慑未来不当行为的民事罚款,以及追缴违法所得(要求他们交出通过非法行为获取的利润)。

不用说,最大的一笔罚款是针对NanoBit的,其欠款约180万美元。而另一方面,Radiant Horizons、Sweet Karma和Zhao Deli都被要求支付超过118万美元。

总结判决时,Bulsara法官补充道:

被告的缺席是故意的;由于缺席,法庭没有看到任何有价值的辩护;并且由于没有其他途径可以获得所寻求的救济,如果不作出缺席判决,SEC将遭受不公平的损害。


最终摘要

  • NanoBit使用虚假的加密货币首次代币发行作为手段来获取受害者的信任。
  • 被告已被勒令支付总计近552万美元的财务罚款。

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

Q美国证券交易委员会(SEC)为何起诉NanoBit?

ASEC起诉NanoBit,指控其在2023年9月至2024年6月期间运行一种被称为‘杀猪盘’的欺诈计划。该公司通过虚假的加密货币首次代币发行(ICO)广告,承诺异常高的回报来吸引受害者,并谎称其关联公司NanobitUS Securities是SEC注册的经纪商。

Q法院对NanoBit及相关被告做出了哪些判决?

A美国纽约东区地方法院做出了最终判决,永久禁止所有被告违反美国证券法中的重要反欺诈条款。被告被责令支付总计近552万美元的罚金,包括追缴非法所得、判决前利息和民事罚款。

Q在NanoBit欺诈案中,投资者资金的实际去向是什么?

A根据法庭文件,NanoBit平台上并未发生真正的交易。投资者的资金实际上流向了计划参与者,其中超过200万美元被电汇至香港的银行账户,另有价值数十万美元的投资者加密资产被侵占。

Q此案中除了NanoBit,还有哪些实体和个人被追究责任?

A除了NanoBit,此案被告还包括Radiant Horizons Limited、Sweet Karma Fashion Inc.、Zhao Tropical Deli Inc.这三家公司,以及未回应SEC诉讼的个人贾杰·刘(Jiajie Liu)和华·赵(Hua Zhao)。

Q法官认定被告‘willful default’(蓄意缺席)的依据是什么?这导致了什么后果?

A法官认定被告的缺席是蓄意的,因为被告未能出庭应诉,使得法庭无法审理任何有价值的抗辩,且除了做出缺席判决外没有其他方式可以实现SEC寻求的救济。这导致法院支持了SEC的诉求,判令被告支付高额罚款并接受永久禁令。

Related Reads

In the AI Era, What's Left for Bitcoin?

As Bitcoin falls below $60,000, the author reflects on the relationship between AI and Bitcoin, seeing them as two sides of the same coin. In the AI era, the cost of generating content has plummeted, making fake text, images, and videos increasingly easy and cheap to produce. This has led to a fundamental shift: while AI dramatically lowers the cost of information production, it also undermines trust and authenticity online. What becomes truly valuable is not more content, but the ability to verify what is real—"verifiability." This perspective offers a new lens for Bitcoin. Its massive energy consumption, often criticized as wasteful, is reinterpreted. While AI burns energy to enhance "capability" and efficiency, Bitcoin burns energy to produce "verifiability." Its purpose is not to be trusted but to enable a system where no trust in intermediaries—banks, platforms, or developers—is needed. Every transaction and the entire ledger's history is secured by cryptography and a decentralized network of nodes, making it independently verifiable. AI cannot forge a transaction on the Bitcoin network because the system is designed for proof, not generation. The author draws a historical parallel to the Renaissance: the printing press drastically reduced the cost of copying knowledge, while double-entry bookkeeping reduced the cost of trust in commerce. Today, AI is the new printing press, reducing content creation costs to near zero. Blockchain, and Bitcoin as its pioneer, may be the modern equivalent of double-entry bookkeeping—a foundational technology for verifying digital asset ownership and historical records without centralized authorities. Thus, AI and blockchain are not competitors. AI lowers the cost of creation; blockchain lowers the cost of verification. In an age where AI can generate anything, true scarcity may lie not in more content, but in independently verifiable facts. Whether the market will reprice Bitcoin accordingly remains uncertain, but its core value proposition as a "machine for producing verifiability" becomes strikingly relevant.

marsbit1h ago

In the AI Era, What's Left for Bitcoin?

marsbit1h ago

In the Age of AI, What's Left for Bitcoin?

Author: Sevclub, Seven Research Amid Bitcoin's recent drop below $60k, the author reflects on a growing sense that AI and Bitcoin are two sides of the same coin. Today, encountering any content triggers a new default question: "Was this made by AI?" The cost of generating convincing text, images, and video is now negligible. While the internet lowered information *distribution* costs, AI is crashing information *production* costs to near zero. The consequence is a flood of content where truth and falsehood are increasingly indistinguishable. In this environment, what becomes truly valuable is not more information, but the ability to verify what is real—"verifiability." This reframes the common criticism that Bitcoin "wastes electricity." AI consumes power to produce "capability" (e.g., more powerful models). Bitcoin consumes power to produce something else: "verifiability." Bitcoin's core purpose isn't about belief or trust in any institution, developer, or even its creator. It's about enabling independent verification. Every bitcoin's origin, every transaction, and the integrity of the entire ledger are secured by mathematics, cryptography, and a global network of nodes. AI can fabricate convincing media, but it cannot falsify a transaction on the Bitcoin network. The expended energy makes篡改历史 (tampering with history) prohibitively expensive, purchasing a globally verifiable ledger. The author draws a historical parallel to the Renaissance. The printing press drastically reduced the cost of copying knowledge, while double-entry bookkeeping reduced the cost of trust in commerce—one enabled creation, the other verification. Today, AI is the new printing press, driving content production costs toward zero. The question becomes: what is this era's "double-entry bookkeeping"? Blockchain appears to be the leading candidate. It doesn't verify which news is true or which image is real, but it provides a foundational layer for independently verifying asset ownership and historical records in the digital realm without centralized authorities. Therefore, AI and blockchain are not in competition. AI lowers the cost of *generation*. Blockchain (and Bitcoin as a prime example) lowers the cost of *verification*. One creates, the other proves. Whether Bitcoin ultimately succeeds remains uncertain, facing potential challenges from quantum computing, regulation, and technical evolution. However, the author now sees it less as a "machine for making bitcoin" and more as a "machine for making verifiability." In an age where AI can generate anything, true scarcity may no longer be "more content," but "more independently verifiable facts." Whether the market will price this accordingly is a separate question.

链捕手1h ago

In the Age of AI, What's Left for Bitcoin?

链捕手1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

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 S (S) are presented below.

活动图片