SEC Files Complaint Against Crypto Exchanges In $14 Million Fraud Scheme

bitcoinistPublished on 2025-12-24Last updated on 2025-12-24

Abstract

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a complaint in Colorado against a network of crypto exchanges and investment clubs accused of orchestrating a $14 million fraud scheme. The entities, including AI Investment Education, AI Wealth, Lane Wealth, and Zenith Asset Tech Foundation, allegedly used WhatsApp and social media to pose as financial professionals offering AI-generated investment insights. Victims were persuaded to invest in three fake crypto trading platforms—Morocoin Tech, Berge Blockchain Technology, and Cirkor—which falsely promised security token offerings resembling IPOs. The SEC described the operation as an "elaborate confidence scam," where funds were never invested but misappropriated from the start. Withdrawal requests were denied unless upfront fees were paid, and no withdrawals were honored. The $14 million was funneled overseas through complex bank and crypto networks. The case highlights a prevalent multistep fraud targeting investors with devastating consequences.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), led by pro-crypto chair Paul Atkins, has filed a significant complaint against a network of alleged crypto exchanges and online investment clubs accused of defrauding victims out of $14 million.

Major Crypto Scam Complaint

The complaint, which was filed in Colorado, identifies four entities that were operating under the guise of investment clubs and primarily used the popular social media app WhatsApp for communication.

The regulator alleges that these clubs falsely presented themselves as being managed by experienced financial professionals, offering what they claimed were valuable investment insights.

Participants were encouraged to invest in three purported crypto trading platforms, described as providing “security token offerings,” which they misleadingly likened to initial public offerings of legitimate company shares.

However, the Securities and Exchange Commission contends that those who bought into these so-called crypto investments were merely handing their money over to con artists.

“This was an elaborate confidence scam,” stated the SEC in its complaint, emphasizing that the investors’ assets were never invested as promised but were misappropriated from the very beginning.

Among the accused, one investment club, AI Investment Education, was registered with the SEC as an investment advisory firm. However, a phone number associated with the firm is currently out of service, and the regulatory filing indicated that it had no assets under management.

The other investment clubs named in the complaint include AI Wealth, Lane Wealth, and Zenith Asset Tech Foundation. The accused crypto trading platforms are Morocoin Tech, Berge Blockchain Technology, and Cirkor.

SEC Details Multistep Scheme

The scammers allegedly lured participants with promises of artificial intelligence-generated investment tips. Victims were persuaded to fund accounts on the fake trading platforms, which were falsely claimed to possess government licenses.

To expand their fraudulent agenda, the scammers implemented a tactic whereby victims wishing to withdraw their funds were required to pay fees upfront. According to the complaint, no withdrawal requests were ever fulfilled.

The SEC reports that the $14 million disappeared overseas, funneled through a complex web of bank accounts and cryptocurrency wallets.

Laura D’Allaird, the chief of the SEC’s Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit, asserts that this case exemplifies a prevalent type of confidence scheme targeting investors and leading to “devastating consequences.” D’Allaird elaborated on the mechanics of the fraud, stating”

Our complaint alleges a multistep fraud that attracted victims through social media advertisements, built trust in group chats where fraudsters posed as financial professionals, and ultimately led victims to invest their money into nonexistent crypto asset trading platforms where it was misappropriated.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap at $2.93 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from DALL-E, chart from TradingView.com

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat is the total amount of money that the SEC alleges was defrauded from victims in this scheme?

A$14 million.

QWhich social media app was primarily used by the alleged crypto exchanges and investment clubs for communication?

AWhatsApp.

QName one of the three accused crypto trading platforms mentioned in the SEC complaint.

AMorocoin Tech, Berge Blockchain Technology, or Cirkor.

QAccording to the SEC, what tactic did the scammers use to prevent victims from withdrawing their funds?

AThey required victims to pay upfront fees, which were never followed by an actual withdrawal.

QWho is the chief of the SEC’s Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit that commented on this case?

ALaura D’Allaird.

Related Reads

The Danger of Old Bookmarks: How an Expired Tornado Cash Domain Cost a User 1,000 ETH

A user lost over 1,010 ETH (worth millions) due to a phishing attack via an expired official domain of the Tornado Cash protocol. As reported on August 20, 2026, the domain `tornado.cash` was not renewed by the original developers amid U.S. OFAC sanctions and was subsequently registered by malicious actors. They deployed a fake frontend mimicking the legitimate Tornado Cash interface. Through this site, the attackers gained access to the user's deposit notes—the data required to withdraw funds from the protocol's pools—and drained the ETH within 12 hours. On-chain data shows the stolen funds (e.g., wallet 0xd8B356...) were withdrawn from Tornado Cash pools. However, on-chain analyst Specter cast doubt on the victim's story. He suggested the individual might be involved in illicit activity, noting that a large sum of BTC was received from a coin-mixing service (Whirlpool) and converted to ETH before being sent to the fake Tornado Cash site. The victim's explanation of urgently moving funds due to a compromised hardware wallet was questioned, as the fund trail indicated deliberate obfuscation. Specter speculated this might be a conflict between malicious actors rather than a simple phishing case. The incident highlights the danger of expired domains for major protocols, where old bookmarks can lead to compromised sites. WHOIS records show the domain was registered in March 2025. Broader analysis notes that in 2025, over $1.8 billion was lost to scams and exploits, largely through social engineering like phishing via familiar but hijacked links. This case underscores the persistent risk when a domain's legal status changes but user trust and search engine reputation remain.

cryptonews.ru15m ago

The Danger of Old Bookmarks: How an Expired Tornado Cash Domain Cost a User 1,000 ETH

cryptonews.ru15m ago

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

An article compares the core architectural philosophies of WeChat and Telegram, highlighting fundamental differences in data storage, monetization, and developer ecosystems. **Data Storage:** Telegram offers unlimited, synchronized cloud storage for seamless access across all devices. In contrast, WeChat stores chat history locally on each device, requiring a manual migration process for transfer and tethering desktop sessions to an active smartphone. **Features & Ecosystem:** Telegram's open Bot API allows for easy, free bot creation, while WeChat's massive ecosystem of over 4.8 million "mini-programs" operates within a closed, curated, and more regulated platform. Commenting also differs: Telegram uses integrated discussion threads for channels, whereas WeChat relies on pre-moderated comments for official accounts and separate chats for interaction. **File Sharing & Payments:** Telegram supports large file transfers (up to 4GB for Premium), while WeChat limits most files to 200MB. A key divergence is in payments: WeChat Pay is deeply integrated into daily life and commerce in China, whereas Telegram lacks a comparable built-in fiat payment system, focusing instead on third-party bots and crypto. **Analysis:** The comparison reveals two distinct models: WeChat is a tightly integrated, closed ecosystem deeply embedded in the real economy, while Telegram prioritizes open protocols, flexible data handling, and low barriers for developers. An added perspective notes that WeChat's fusion of messaging and payments in a single interface without end-to-end encryption for chats potentially broadens the attack surface, raising security questions as more functions converge.

cryptonews.ru5h ago

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

cryptonews.ru5h 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 US (US) are presented below.

活动图片