A fake delivery driver stole $11 million worth of cryptocurrency this weekend, while home burglary cases are also on the rise.

Written by: Liam Akiba Wright

Translated by: Saoirse, Foresight News

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, around 6:45 AM on November 22, a suspect posing as a delivery person entered a residence near 18th Street and Dolores Street in the "Dolores Mission District," subdued the homeowner, and stole a mobile phone, a laptop, and approximately $11 million in cryptocurrency.

As of Sunday, the San Francisco police had not announced any arrests or provided specific details about the stolen assets, and the blockchain network or token type of the involved cryptocurrency has not yet been disclosed.

Physical attacks targeting cryptocurrency holders are not isolated incidents, and a concerning trend is gradually emerging.

Previous reports of such cases include: a $4.3 million home invasion robbery in the UK; a kidnapping and torture case in New York's Soho district aimed at forcing victims to hand over access to their Bitcoin wallets; a surge in cryptocurrency-related kidnappings in France and the government's response; extreme protective measures taken by well-known cryptocurrency holders (such as the "Bitcoin family") to enhance operational security by distributing wallet recovery phrases across multiple continents; a trend of high-net-worth cryptocurrency investors generally hiring security personnel; and analyses of the trends in "ransom attacks" (a method of obtaining cryptocurrency through violent coercion) and the pros and cons of self-custody of cryptocurrency.

Following the robbery, on-chain tracking was immediately initiated

Even if the robbery starts at a front door, the stolen funds often still flow on public blockchain ledgers, making tracking possible — thus forming a "race": one side involves the shifting of money laundering channels, while the other side involves increasingly mature and refined freezing and tracking tools by 2025. The USDT on TRON remains a core consideration in this "race."

This year, through collaborations among token issuers, blockchain networks, and data analytics companies, the industry's ability to freeze illegal assets has improved. According to the "T3 Financial Crimes Division" report, hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal trading tokens have been frozen since the end of 2024.

If the stolen funds include stablecoins, the likelihood of preventing the flow of funds in the short term will significantly increase — because major stablecoin issuers will collaborate with law enforcement and data analytics partners to blacklist the involved wallet addresses upon notification.

Broader data also supports the view that "stablecoins are the preferred tool for illegal fund flows." The Chainalysis 2025 Crime Report indicates that stablecoins accounted for about 63% of the total volume of illegal transactions in 2024, marking a significant shift compared to previous years when BTC and ETH dominated money laundering channels.

This shift is crucial for fund recovery: centralized stablecoin issuers can block transactions at the token level, and when intermediary funds enter stages requiring KYC processes, centralized platforms (such as exchanges) become additional "interception nodes."

Meanwhile, Europol has warned that organized crime groups are upgrading their methods using artificial intelligence — which not only shortens money laundering cycles but also automates the splitting of funds across blockchain networks and service platforms. If the target address of the stolen funds can be identified, the key to action lies in notifying token issuers and exchanges as early as possible.

From a macro perspective, the situation regarding victims' losses continues to worsen

Records from the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center show that losses from cybercrime and fraud reached $16.6 billion in 2024, with cryptocurrency investment fraud cases increasing by 66% year-on-year. Between 2024 and 2025, incidents of physical coercion against cryptocurrency holders (sometimes referred to as "ransom attacks") have garnered more attention — these cases often combine home invasions, SIM card hijacking (fraudulently obtaining control of someone else's SIM card), and social engineering tactics. TRM Labs (a blockchain security company) has documented trends related to such coercive thefts.

Although the San Francisco case only involved a single residence, the modus operandi is representative: invasion of devices → coercing the victim to transfer funds or export private keys → quickly dispersing funds on-chain → testing whether withdrawal channels are feasible.

New regulatory policies in California add another variable to this case. The state's "Digital Financial Assets Act" will take effect in July 2025, granting the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation the authority to issue licenses and enforce regulations on specific cryptocurrency exchanges and custodial institutions.

If any "exit channels" (referring to channels that convert cryptocurrency to fiat currency), over-the-counter (OTC) brokers, or storage service providers with business ties to California come into contact with the stolen funds, the regulatory framework of the "Digital Financial Assets Act" can support their collaboration with law enforcement. Although this is not a direct means of recovering self-custodied assets, it will impact the counterparties that thieves typically rely on to convert cryptocurrency into fiat currency.

Policy changes in other regions will also affect the subsequent direction of the case

According to legal analysis from the Venable law firm, the U.S. Treasury Department removed the mixer Tornado Cash from the "Specially Designated Nationals List" (a list of individuals or entities sanctioned by the U.S.) on March 21, 2025, altering the compliance requirements when interacting with that mixer’s codebase.

However, this change does not legalize money laundering or reduce the analyzability of on-chain transactions.

Nonetheless, it does weaken the previous "deterrent" that prompted some participants to turn to other mixers or cross-chain bridges. If the stolen funds are mixed using traditional mixers or transferred to stablecoins via cross-chain bridges before withdrawal, the key nodes for tracing the funds and triggering the KYC process will still be critical points in the case.

Since the wallet addresses involved have not yet been made public, trading platforms can plan their response strategies for the next 14 to 90 days around three core pathways. The table below outlines the "Tier 1 Fund Transfer Model," indicators to watch, and the probability ranges for freezing and recovering funds based on the market structure and regulatory landscape in 2025:

Clues regarding the case timeline can be inferred from the above model.

In the initial 24-72 hours, attention should focus on the consolidation and early transfer of funds. If the involved addresses are exposed and the funds include stablecoins, the issuer should be immediately notified to initiate a blacklist review; if the funds exist in the form of Bitcoin or Ethereum, monitoring the movements of mixers and cross-chain bridges, as well as whether they shift to USDT before withdrawal to fiat currency, is necessary.

According to the collaboration process of the Internet Crime Complaint Center, if the funds flow into places requiring KYC, a "preservation of assets letter" is typically issued within 7-14 days, freezing the relevant accounts on exchanges.

Within 30-90 days, if privacy coin trading paths emerge, the investigation focus will shift to off-chain clues, including device forensics, communication records, and traces of the "fake delivery" scam — the fund tracing work of TRM Labs and similar institutions will also gradually advance during this phase.

Wallet designs continue to evolve to address the risks of physical coercion

In 2025, the application scope of "multi-party computation wallets" and "account abstraction wallets" will further expand, adding features such as strategy control, seedless recovery, daily transfer limits, and multi-factor approval processes — these designs can reduce the "single point of exposure" risk of private keys in physical coercion incidents (i.e., private keys will not be leaked through a single device or link).

Contract-level "time locks" (mechanisms that set delays for transaction execution) and "spending limits" can slow down the transfer speed of high-value funds, and if an account is compromised, they can create a time window for issuing alerts to issuers or exchanges.

These protective measures cannot replace basic security protocols regarding device usage and home safety, but they can reduce the likelihood of successful fund theft when thieves gain access to a mobile phone or laptop.

The San Francisco Chronicle's report has provided the core facts of the case, but the San Francisco Police Department's official website has not yet released a special announcement regarding this case.

The subsequent progress of the case will depend on two main factors: whether the target address involved will be made public and whether the stablecoin issuer or exchange has received requests for review and intervention.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。