On January 23, 2026, the People's Procuratorate of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, formally prosecuted 30 individuals, including Sui Guangyi and Ma Xiaoqiu, for fundraising fraud, illegal public deposit acceptance, money laundering, and other charges related to the Dingyifeng system. This marks the transition of this cross-border financial case from the investigation phase to the judicial trial phase. The "wealth management myth" that originated under the guise of traditional high-yield financial management and asset management has gradually evolved into a typical "new wine in old bottles" fundraising scam after introducing the so-called DDO digital options and layering on the concept of virtual currency. Alongside the prosecution of approximately 50 other involved individuals by the People's Procuratorate of Futian District in Shenzhen, and the police's seizure and freezing of related properties, vehicles, equity, and bank accounts, a systematic "net collection operation" surrounding Dingyifeng is entering a critical stage of judicial accountability and financial settlement.
From Wealth Management Myth to Dingyifeng in the Indictment
● External Image Packaging: Dingyifeng Asset and Hong Kong Dingyifeng International Holdings Group have long positioned themselves as an "international financial group" and "asset management platform," constructing a sophisticated shell through high-yield financial management, art, and asset allocation stories, shaping a brand narrative of "professional investment research + stable value appreciation." Under this packaging, their business is more easily perceived by ordinary investors as compliant wealth management, while the real risks of product structure and fund utilization are overlooked.
● Key Information in the Indictment: On January 23, 2026, at 8:00 AM UTC+8, the People's Procuratorate of Shenzhen City officially filed charges against Sui Guangyi, Ma Xiaoqiu, and 30 others in court, accusing them of engaging in fundraising fraud, illegal public deposit acceptance, money laundering, and other activities under the Dingyifeng framework. This indicates that the case has completed police investigation and has been transferred for review and prosecution, entering the judicial trial phase based on facts and evidence, where the responsible individuals will face direct criminal sentencing challenges.
● Hierarchical Structure of the Case: According to publicly available information, in addition to the city-level prosecution of 30 individuals, the People's Procuratorate of Futian District in Shenzhen has also initiated prosecution procedures against approximately 50 other involved individuals, presenting a parallel case handling pattern of "city-level + district-level." This layered prosecution model reflects the multi-level characteristics of Dingyifeng in terms of organizational structure, business lines, and responsibility division, and also indicates that judicial authorities are attempting to accurately distinguish the responsibility boundaries of the core decision-making layer, key execution layer, and peripheral participants.
● Clues to Criminal Charges: The prosecution is currently focusing on charges of fundraising fraud, illegal public deposit acceptance, and money laundering, which correspond to the false advertising and illegal promises in the fundraising phase, the illegality of fund sources and fundraising methods, as well as the transfer, concealment, and laundering paths of illegal gains. By combining multiple charges, judicial authorities aim to cover the complete criminal chain from fundraising, operation to cross-border circulation, leaving ample legal space for subsequent asset recovery and accountability.
Illegal Fundraising Coupled with DDO Cryptocurrency Hype
● Digital Options Spliced Under Traditional Shell: Dingyifeng initially continued to use the traditional shell of high-yield financial management and asset management, attracting funds through the so-called "stable value appreciation and timely payment." After investors formed a path dependency, the concept of "digital options" named DDO was gradually embedded. By packaging DDO as a new generation financial tool, the structure originally based on fund pool operations was cloaked in the terminology of "derivatives + fintech," allowing the old fundraising model to gain a new narrative halo, obscuring the essence of risk.
● Virtual Currency Attributes in Regulatory Qualifying: The Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Financial Supervision has publicly stated that DDO digital options are recognized as virtual currency issuance and trading activities, which means they do not operate within the current licensed financial framework but are illegal financial innovations outside the regulatory system. This qualification not only dismantles the platform's market rhetoric of "compliant derivatives" and "legitimate overseas licenses," but also provides legal and regulatory basis for subsequent criminal accountability.
● Narrative Tactics of "High-Tech Financial Innovation": The project party leveraged terms like virtual currency and digital options to shape DDO into a high-tech financial product that "links global liquidity, utilizes algorithmic pricing, and is risk controllable," frequently emphasizing labels like "international platform, overseas holding, intelligent trading." For ordinary investors lacking professional judgment, this narrative blurs the boundaries between traditional deposit-loan logic and high-risk speculation, easily leading them to misinterpret the "mysterious" technical jargon as a safety endorsement.
● Replication of Fund Pools and False Returns: Despite being cloaked in digital options and virtual currency, the core of the Dingyifeng model remains attracting funds through high-yield promises, forming a concentrated fund pool, and then using new money to pay off old money, creating the illusion of "stable high returns." Essentially, this is merely an upgraded version of the illegal fundraising tactics that have appeared multiple times in history, with serious deviations from compliance standards in key aspects such as return promises, information disclosure, and asset authenticity, representing a typical scam that disguises fundraising as technology.
Regulatory Qualifying Reversal: From Red Line Alerts to Rigid Enforcement
● Key Nodes in the Regulatory Timeline: On March 28, 2024, Shenzhen financial regulatory authorities directly named DDO-related activities in official channels, identifying them as illegal financial activities. This time point became a public signal for the reversal of the case's trajectory. Previously, DDO was more often presented as an "innovative product" in the market, but this explicit naming pulled it out of the "gray innovation" ambiguous zone, establishing a systemic starting point for subsequent case investigations and criminal accountability.
● The Relay Relationship Between Administrative and Criminal: After local financial regulatory authorities completed the administrative identification of DDO's nature, the police were able to initiate investigation procedures based on this, launching criminal investigations into the fundraising entities and associated platforms. The subsequent transfer of the case to the procuratorial authorities for review and prosecution, followed by the prosecution filing charges in court, formed a multi-department relay of "administrative warning - police investigation - procuratorial prosecution." This path demonstrates how regulatory, police, and prosecutorial authorities collaborate at different stages in new financial cases.
● Upgrading Trajectory of Nature Identification: From initially viewing it as an "illegal financial activity" at the administrative level to now prosecuting it with severe charges such as fundraising fraud, illegal public deposit acceptance, and money laundering, the regulatory stance shows a clear upgrading trajectory. The former emphasizes the lack of compliance and business overreach, while the latter focuses on subjective malice, illegal possession purposes, and the transfer and laundering of illegal gains, indicating that the judgment of behavior nature has risen from regulatory violations to serious criminal offenses that infringe on property rights.
● Shift in Policy Signals: This process releases a clear signal—any quasi-financial projects packaged under the concept of virtual currency, promoting wealth management and guaranteed high returns, will no longer remain at the early stage of "risk alerts and red line delineation," but will more quickly enter the stages of investigation and accountability. For the market, this indicates that future regulatory responses to similar projects will replace lenient observation periods with rigid enforcement, and new packaging will no longer serve as a protective umbrella against traditional illegal fundraising charges.
Cross-Border Fund Maze and Layered Prosecution by the Prosecutor's Office
● Representation of Complex Fund Flows: According to publicly disclosed case descriptions, the Dingyifeng case is not a single account's income and expenditure, but rather involves repeated transactions among local companies in Shenzhen, overseas holding platforms, and multiple layers of banks and third-party accounts. Funds circulate between different entities and judicial jurisdictions, disguising their true direction through nominal investments, collaborations, and dividends, while also utilizing cross-border structures to increase tracking difficulty. This "fund maze" characteristic is a common tactic in many new illegal fundraising and virtual currency cases.
● Impact of Seizures and Freezes on the Fund Chain: The police have implemented seizure or freezing measures on related properties, vehicles, equity, and bank accounts. Although the specific asset scale and details have not been disclosed, these actions effectively cut off the paths for the involved funds to be further transferred and concealed. By locking visible assets, the authorities lay the groundwork for potential future recovery and compensation, while also creating psychological and legal pressure on those still attempting to transfer assets.
● Layered Prosecution Reflecting Organizational Structure: The city-level prosecution of 30 individuals and the district-level prosecution of approximately 50 individuals reflect the top-down organization and responsibility division within Dingyifeng: the upper layer is responsible for overall decision-making and model design, the middle layer handles product packaging, market promotion, and fund operation, while the lower layer undertakes ground promotion, client maintenance, and execution operations. By including different levels in the prosecution list, the prosecution hopes to reflect the principle of "who decides, who is responsible" in sentencing, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.
● Demonstration Effect of Cross-Regional Collaboration: This case spans local Shenzhen and overseas platforms, multiple institutions, and various accounts, inevitably involving information sharing, collaborative investigations, and evidence transfer between different judicial jurisdictions and regulatory agencies. The linkage between city and district prosecutors, as well as the collaboration between public security, prosecution, and financial regulatory departments, provides a reference template for handling similar "overseas holding + virtual currency + local wealth management" combination cases in the future, and its deterrent effect will also extend to market participants who are still observing or imitating such models.
Trapped Investors and the Market's Chill Effect
● Uncertainty in Payments and Lengthy Recovery: After the collapse of the Dingyifeng model and the intervention of judicial authorities, the reality faced by existing investors is that product payments are indefinitely postponed, and the status of assets and the proportion of recoverable amounts are highly uncertain. As the case enters criminal proceedings, fund settlement and compensation will be subject to the progress of asset recovery, debt recognition processes, and court rulings, often meaning a long waiting period and unpredictable loss levels, forcing many investors to endure psychological and financial dual pressures in an information asymmetry environment.
● Secondary Harm from Information Opacity: As of now, the authorities have not disclosed the number of involved investors or specific amounts, and the circulating claims of "hundreds of billions in scale, tens of thousands of participants" lack authoritative confirmation. Investors cannot obtain clear expectations regarding the progress of their personal fund disposal, nor do they have transparent information about the overall asset status of the case. This uncertainty itself constitutes a secondary harm to the already affected groups and amplifies general distrust towards similar projects.
● Impact on Conceptual Wealth Management and Overseas Packaging: The Dingyifeng case attracted a large amount of high-yield-seeking funds through the concepts of virtual currency, overseas holding structures, and "international asset allocation" stories. After the case was exposed and entered the prosecution stage, market trust in such wealth management models centered on "concept + cross-border + high yield" significantly declined, with investors more inclined to question the real assets and regulatory affiliations behind them, also affecting a batch of projects that similarly emphasize overseas licenses, digital assets, and innovative derivatives in their promotions.
● Collective Vigilance on Market Keywords: In the shadow of this case, keywords like "high yield," "cross-border structure," "digital options," and "overseas holding" are increasingly viewed by more investors as potential risk signals rather than opportunity labels. For groups that have not yet developed mature risk identification capabilities, this emotional shift may lead to short-term excessive caution, but in the long run, it helps compress the survival space for illegal fundraising disguised under complex terminology, forcing the market to re-examine the basic matching logic of risk and return.
Aftermath of DDO: The Next Round of Regulatory Games and Investor Self-Rescue
The Dingyifeng case reveals the systemic risks arising from the connection between traditional illegal fundraising models and cryptocurrency concepts: on one end are familiar high-yield promises, fund pool operations, and hierarchical organizational structures, while on the other end are the virtual currencies and digital options rhetoric represented by DDO. The combination of the two has rapidly expanded in the regulatory gaps and information asymmetries. Once a crisis occurs, the impact on personal property security, financial order, and social trust far exceeds that of simple offline fundraising or single cryptocurrency speculation events.
From a regulatory perspective, the regulatory framework surrounding virtual currency-related products, cross-border wealth management agency, and local financial platforms is likely to tighten further: for "digital asset + wealth management" businesses conducted by unlicensed entities, the enforcement standards will shift from principled alerts to substantive penetrating reviews; the linkage mechanisms between local financial regulation, public security, and prosecution will also continue to solidify in case practices, forming a regulatory environment with higher frequency and lower tolerance.
For ordinary investors, the key points for self-protection in the next stage are very clear: any project that claims to offer "digital options," "overseas holdings," "high-yield capital preservation," or "quick returns," while lacking clear licensing information and transparent underlying assets, should be regarded as a potential candidate for high-risk combination scams. Instead of spending years and a lot of energy on recovery afterward, it is better to filter out asymmetric risks in advance using simple common sense—check the licenses, check the underlying assets, and check whether the returns are reasonable.
From the perspective of long-term industry evolution, the Dingyifeng case is just the starting point for boundary redefinition. In the future, regulatory authorities will continuously clarify which digital and overseas designs can enter the financial innovation sandbox and which must be excluded, through more refined rules and cases, between compliant financial innovation and illegal fundraising. Truly valuable innovations will be willing to operate under transparent regulation, while those models that can only survive by relying on information asymmetry and "story premiums" will be accelerated to be cleared out through repeated cases.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
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。
