In 2026, two cases thousands of kilometers apart simultaneously tore open the shadows and cracks of the cryptocurrency world: In Taiwan, Coin Thinking Technology was once one of the most prominent cryptocurrency service providers on the streets, openly selling USDT to the public through approximately 45 stores across the island. However, without completing anti-money laundering registration, it was identified as being connected with a fraud group, becoming a key channel for over 1,500 victims and about 2.3 billion New Taiwan Dollars in funds. The person in charge, Shi Qiren, was also exposed to have ties to the Tian Dao Alliance, and was ultimately sentenced to 22 years in prison in the first instance by the Shilin District Court. Meanwhile, in the UK, three men leveraged public trust in authority to create a fake police website, impersonating officers of the London Metropolitan Police, luring at least 8 victims to move their cryptocurrency under the pretense of "protecting asset safety," with the case involving over £4 million. It wasn't until the London Metropolitan Police used blockchain tracing technology to track the transaction paths and identify the suspects that the case was heard on July 16, 2026, where the court emphasized that cryptocurrency is not an anonymous safe haven. These two cases connect gangs with street stores on one side and fake police with counterfeit websites on the other, representing the same tug-of-war: as cryptocurrencies are constantly tested and abused by criminals, law enforcement agencies are retaliating with harsh judicial punishment and technological tracing, competing over whether this new financial system is a tool for crime or a battlefield that can be regulated.
Gang Manipulates Coin Thinking Stores to Launder 2.3 Billion and 1,500 People
In Taiwan, this company, claiming to serve the entire country, inserted itself into the funding chain of a fraud group through about 45 brick-and-mortar stores branded as "USDT." To passersby, they were merely convenience stores where cash could buy cryptocurrencies; to the forces behind Shi Qiren and the Tian Dao Alliance, these stores represented a stable and controllable money laundering conduit: funds drawn from victims by the fraud group were routed to these stores in batches, exchanged for blockchain-based USDT, and then quickly transferred and dispersed, cutting off the direct association between funds and individuals. The store network covered the entire island, allowing funds to shuttle back and forth between the cash registers and the blockchain, ultimately amassing approximately 2.3 billion New Taiwan Dollars in massive illicit profits. The losses of over 1,500 victims were reduced to cold transfer records, with only store addresses and transaction hashes proving the actual path traveled by this organized crime.
The Shilin District Court did not view this company as a "naive newbie ignorant of the law," but clearly identified that operating virtual asset services without completing anti-money laundering registration and colluding with fraud groups constituted an aggravation of the fraud and money laundering chain. Shi Qiren was sentenced to 22 years, not only because he was a significant figure with ties to the Tian Dao Alliance, but because the stores were deliberately designed to serve as hubs for substantial throughput and rapid concealment of funds in the calculations of organized crime. The judicial agency responded to this model of "hanging a company sign while conducting gang business" with long sentences, effectively drawing a line of caution between the on-chain and the street: anyone who uses compliance as a guise for gang activity will be considered a core node of conspiracy, not a peripheral service provider that can distance itself after the fact.
Fake Police Website: £4 Million in Cryptocurrency Swindled
If the offline stores in Taiwan are the "fund gates" pushed open by gangs, this case in the UK shows individuals directly donning the cloak of law enforcement. Three men claimed to be from the London Metropolitan Police and constructed a nearly one-to-one replica of an official "police website," intentionally creating an aura of official authority from the domain name to the interface, and then guided visitors through phone calls and online communications to believe they were interacting with real officers. They then presented a seemingly reasonable excuse— to "protect asset safety," they needed victims to temporarily transfer their cryptocurrency to a wallet supervised by the police. Each step of their dialogue mimicked a counter-fraud action, while their true goal was to channel funds into wallets controlled by their group. At least 8 victims gradually transferred their assets under the guise of "assisting investigation" and "asset protection," accumulating losses of over £4 million, a considerable figure in similar cases disclosed by the UK police in recent years.
However, by choosing to operate on-chain, the scammers left clues on a public ledger. After the London Metropolitan Police took over the investigation, they were not trapped by the facade of "fake police," but instead focused on the transferred cryptocurrency, using blockchain tracing technology to meticulously track transaction paths, deduce the ultimate destination of funds, and thus pinpoint the specific wallets and the manipulators behind them. The case subsequently entered the judicial process, and on July 16, 2026, the Southwark Crown Court issued a verdict against the three accused of impersonating police officers, with the London Metropolitan Police simultaneously emphasizing that "cryptocurrency is not an anonymous safe haven," warning the market with the case results: the seemingly complicated maze of funds on-chain is actually becoming a public battlefield for police and judicial agencies to counter-track criminal proceeds, where any fraudulent activity masquerading under the name of anonymity is laid bare.
OTC Stores and Fake Identities: Exposing Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Channels
If we place the Coin Thinking Technology case in Taiwan and the fake police case in London side by side, it is easy to see that they both operate in the same funding channel: both leverage cryptocurrency to complete critical fund transfers, deliberately bypassing traditional banking systems and KYC processes, only differing in packaging— one is offline and the other is on-chain. On the Taiwanese side, Coin Thinking Technology sold USDT to the public through about 45 physical OTC stores, allowing large amounts of cash that would normally require bank accounts and transfer records to flow directly into the cryptocurrency ecosystem, which was then disassembled and transferred on-chain by the fraud group, achieving a rapid exchange between cash and tokens. On the UK side, the three men simply skipped the offline venues and counters, forged police websites and identities, and lured at least 8 victims to convert assets into cryptocurrency and transfer them online, ensuring that the funds remained on-chain from the outset without passing through any real bank windows or manual reviews.
From a regulatory perspective, the responses to the two cases formed a stark contrast. The Shilin District Court in Taiwan, in its first-instance ruling, focused on the key point that Coin Thinking Technology "operated virtual asset services without completing anti-money laundering registration," directly viewing the OTC stores as high-risk nodes in the money laundering chain, targeting off-exchange trades and unregistered operators with severe penalties, signaling a comprehensive tightening of offline cryptocurrency stores. Meanwhile, the London Metropolitan Police unveiled another path at the technical level: utilizing blockchain tracing analysis to identify the flow of over £4 million in cryptocurrency, and increasingly tightening the net through international cooperation. Ultimately, the Southwark Crown Court completed its judicial rulings on July 16, 2026, proving that fake police identities and counterfeit websites could not obstruct the tracing of evidence on-chain. Research briefings characterize these two cases occurring in 2026 as reflections of the same trend: one end sees off-exchange trading stores incorporated into tighter judicial crackdowns, while the other end has fake identities and websites becoming key focuses of technical investigations. Global regulation is concurrently tightening both offline and online, creating an increasingly enclosed structure to block cryptocurrency money laundering channels.
Victims Induced to Convert Cryptocurrency: Traditional Financial Defense Fails
In Taiwan's case files, many victims' first step was not clicking on unfamiliar links but walking into seemingly normal street stores. Under the neon lights, Coin Thinking Technology displayed a legitimate business sign, with staff skillfully explaining how to exchange cash or deposits for USDT. Receipts, surveillance cameras behind the counter, and standardized processes packaged everything as "legitimate financial services." Victims were often already frightened by the fraud group's preliminary dialogues—whether being accused or told that "their accounts were locked," with instructions prompting them to go to Coin Thinking's stores to "safely" convert their money into on-chain assets, following arrows to complete purchases, and then transferring the freshly acquired USDT into wallets prepared by the scammer. Over 1,500 individuals repeated the same actions in different cities and stores, with every step appearing to comply with regulations, until they realized that their so-called "safe transfer" of assets had completely departed from traditional banking oversight.
The UK's scam wore a different disguise but also capitalized on people's instinctive responses to authority and risk. When victims received calls claiming to be from the London Metropolitan Police, they were sent a link to a seemingly serious and standardized "police website," which continuously emphasized "asset protection" and "preventing criminals from stealing your account." Under the pressure of being told "your current account is very dangerous" and "if you don’t cooperate immediately, your funds could be stolen at any time," at least 8 victims believed they were collaborating with real police, voluntarily transferring their cryptocurrency into so-called "police-regulated addresses" as instructed. Once funds were rapidly converted from fiat or deposits into on-chain assets, traditional banking transaction monitoring, suspicious account alerts, and emergency stop-payment mechanisms virtually ceased to function. They only saw expenses directed toward off-exchange stores but found it difficult to trace the subsequent jump paths on-chain. Both cases occurring in 2026 prove the same point: when "safety" and "asset protection" are preemptively claimed by scammers, users' instinctive trust in storefront signs and police symbols can transform into active cooperation under fear, and without educational measures against cryptocurrency scenarios and cross-platform risk alert mechanisms, traditional financial defenses can only watch as funds are gradually siphoned away from their systems.
On-Chain Tracking and Harsh Sentences Parallel: Global Cryptocurrency Crime Faces Strong Regulation
From Taiwan to London, these two cases in 2026 have presented a reality: cryptocurrencies are both tools of money laundering and fraud skillfully used by criminal organizations and evidence chains that can be reversed by technology and justice. The Shilin District Court's 22-year sentence for Shi Qiren clearly communicates that collusion with fraud groups and operating cryptocurrency stores without completing anti-money laundering registration is no longer just a "regulatory gray area," but will bring about the high price of long-term loss of freedom; on the other hand, the London Metropolitan Police, by tracing the blockchain to identify the fake police group while emphasizing that "cryptocurrency is not an anonymous safe haven," signals to the market that on-chain trajectories can be restored and that technical investigations and criminal accountability are forming a "law + technology" containment strategy. Research briefings categorize these two cases as representative nodes in the continuing escalation of global enforcement against cryptocurrency fraud and money laundering, reflecting that regulation and crackdowns on off-exchange trading stores, unregistered virtual asset service providers, and fake identity scams are being synchronized and intensified. In such an environment, if industry participants continue to view compliance as a cost and risk control as an option, and users still imagine cryptocurrencies as "anonymous safe havens" to evade scrutiny and responsibility, they will ultimately pay a higher price in the dual feedback of technological tracing and severe penalties, while a truly safe asset environment must be established on the common premise of clear regulation, on-chain transparency, and the active self-discipline of all participants.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin's on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
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。
