Scan to download
BTC $67,862.42 -1.36%
ETH $1,966.42 -0.69%
BNB $616.50 -0.13%
XRP $1.45 -2.20%
SOL $85.16 -0.62%
TRX $0.2817 +0.47%
DOGE $0.0985 -3.92%
ADA $0.2799 -1.14%
BCH $558.65 +0.45%
LINK $8.76 -1.02%
HYPE $29.64 -0.86%
AAVE $124.05 -2.50%
SUI $0.9627 -0.33%
XLM $0.1653 -2.67%
ZEC $284.36 -1.66%
BTC $67,862.42 -1.36%
ETH $1,966.42 -0.69%
BNB $616.50 -0.13%
XRP $1.45 -2.20%
SOL $85.16 -0.62%
TRX $0.2817 +0.47%
DOGE $0.0985 -3.92%
ADA $0.2799 -1.14%
BCH $558.65 +0.45%
LINK $8.76 -1.02%
HYPE $29.64 -0.86%
AAVE $124.05 -2.50%
SUI $0.9627 -0.33%
XLM $0.1653 -2.67%
ZEC $284.36 -1.66%

gambling

A network engineer was accused of stealing funds from a gambling website, and police in two locations have successively filed cases and seized 183 bitcoins

Shenzhen IT man Li Dong (pseudonym) has been targeted by the police from Hunan and Henan provinces. A large amount of Bitcoin was found in his virtual currency wallet. The public security organs of Zhangjiajie City in Hunan and Changge City in Henan have both filed investigations against Li Dong, with the charge of "operating a casino." The Zhangjiajie police seized over 100 Bitcoins from Li Dong's account, converting them into more than 40 million yuan; the Henan police seized 80 Bitcoins from him, with a market value exceeding 40 million yuan.Later, Li Dong was not charged with "operating a casino." He was prosecuted by the Changge City People's Procuratorate in Henan for suspected theft and infringement of citizens' personal information. In January 2026, the case was publicly heard in the Changge City Court. After the court adjourned, it stated that a new hearing would be scheduled. Li Dong, born in the 1980s, is a network information security engineer, having studied information security in college. He has worked in network security technology for several well-known internet companies and later settled in Shenzhen, where he started and operated an internet company in recent years.According to his family, Li Dong began trading stocks and cryptocurrencies around 2016 and acquired some Bitcoins. However, the police later investigated and believed that the source of his Bitcoins was from another "channel." In September 2024, the Hunan Zhangjiajie Public Security Bureau summoned Li Dong on suspicion of "operating a casino." It turned out that in May of that year, the Zhangjiajie police launched an investigation into an online gambling case based on "anonymous reports," and Li Dong was listed as a suspect. The Zhangjiajie police seized 103 Bitcoins from Li Dong's digital wallet, converting them into over 49.61 million yuan. Soon after, Li Dong was released on bail. On the seizure decision and the bail release document, the charge against Li Dong changed from "operating a casino" to "illegally obtaining data from computer information systems."

Infini accuses its engineer of being addicted to gambling or stealing 50 million dollars

ChainCatcher message, according to reports from Wu, monitored by Etherscan, the Infini Team sent an on-chain message to Infini Exploiter 2: 0xfc...6e49, attaching court litigation documents via a link. The specific content is as follows:The plaintiff is Chou Christian-Long, the CEO of BP SG Investment Holding Limited, a Hong Kong registered company wholly owned by Infini Labs. The first defendant is Chen Shanxuan, who works remotely in Foshan, Guangdong, and the identities of the second to fourth defendants are temporarily unconfirmed.The plaintiff, along with BP Singapore, developed a smart contract for managing company and client funds, led by the first defendant. The contract was originally set up with multi-signature permissions to strictly control any fund transfers.When the contract went live on the mainnet, the first defendant allegedly retained "super admin" privileges but falsely claimed to other team members that he had "transferred" or "removed" that privilege.In late February 2025, the plaintiff discovered that approximately 49,516,662.977 USDC worth of crypto assets had been transferred to several unknown wallet addresses (controlled by the second to fourth defendants) without multi-signature approval.Fearing that the defendants or unidentified individuals would further transfer or launder the assets, the plaintiff applied to the court for:A "restraining order" against the first defendant and related unidentified individuals to restrict their transfer or disposal of the stolen assets;An order for the defendants or those actually controlling the relevant wallets to self-disclose their identities;Issuance of various mandatory orders prohibiting the disposal of assets to the first defendant and other unknown wallet holders;A request for the other party to disclose transaction and asset information;Permission for the plaintiff to "serve extraterritorially" (i.e., serve legal documents to foreign defendants) and alternative methods of service.In the body of one affidavit, the plaintiff stated: I recently learned that the first defendant has a serious gambling habit, which may have led him to incur substantial debts. I believe this prompted him to steal the assets involved in the case to alleviate his debts. The plaintiff also submitted screenshots of relevant message records to prove that the first defendant "may be in substantial debt."According to the affidavit, the first defendant borrowed funds from various sources in a relatively short period, even allegedly contacting "underground banks" or so-called "loan sharks," leading to pressure from high interest rates and debt collection calls.Exhibit "CCL-17" mentions that he sought help from others in a chat, stating that he was burdened with "interest from several lenders" and continuously asked if he could borrow more money to get through the difficulties or requested the other party to help introduce new funding sources.Shortly before the incident, the first defendant had revealed in work groups or private conversations with colleagues/friends that his financial situation was "very tight," even expressing anxiety that "if I can't get money again, something will happen."These statements almost coincide with the timing of the unauthorized transfer of the company's crypto assets, thereby reinforcing the plaintiff's judgment regarding the first defendant's "motive": possibly taking risks due to pressure from substantial debt.According to the plaintiff's statement, the first defendant repeatedly avoided or only gave vague answers when asked about personal finances or gambling issues, being unclear about how much debt he actually had or whether he was still gambling.The affidavit states that the first defendant pretended that "there was no big problem" from the end of October until the incident occurred, but the content he discussed in chat software with others was clearly contradictory to this.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.