How to properly view the convenience, risks, and regulatory challenges brought by crypto assets?

Prince Group-related cases continue to deepen, and the scope of impact keeps expanding. After the global law enforcement storm triggered by the Chen Zhi case begins to subside, a deeper issue has surfaced: Are cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin quietly slipping from the “decentralized financial revolution” into the “infrastructure of criminal economies”?

Today, Sister Sa’s team will once again discuss this case with readers, focusing on the following three questions, analyzing the complex relationship between cryptocurrencies and illegal activities, as well as the future regulation and development trends of cryptocurrencies.

As the U.S. Department of Justice filed criminal charges against Prince Group Chairman Chen Zhi, and multiple countries simultaneously froze related assets, this cross-Asia and Western “crackdown on crypto black markets” seems to have come to an end. But behind the noise, an unavoidable reality is forming: cryptocurrencies are becoming the core tools of new transnational crimes, deeply embedded in telecom fraud, human trafficking, money laundering, and cash-out chains. This not only threatens public safety but could fundamentally undermine the legitimacy of the crypto industry.

2. Is there a “black eat black” relationship between the U.S. government and Prince Group?

The criminal nature of Prince Group is undeniable; their actions far exceed ordinary financial crimes, forming a complex crime network of “human trafficking—forced labor—crypto scams—cross-border money laundering,” which should be severely punished. However, if the U.S. truly used hacking methods to preemptively seize Bitcoin to confiscate criminal proceeds from Prince Group, that would be another matter.

In this U.S. operation, on one hand, the application and legitimacy of the “long-arm jurisdiction” principle in the digital asset field are in question. The U.S. Department of Justice claims jurisdiction based on the “minimum contacts” principle, meaning as long as the criminal activity has a weak connection to the U.S.—such as using U.S. technological infrastructure or involving the U.S. financial system—jurisdiction can be exercised. This further expands the scope of jurisdiction in the cryptocurrency field, essentially eroding the principles of territorial and personal jurisdiction based on international law, and infringing on the judicial sovereignty of countries like Cambodia. It has been criticized as a legal expansionism relying on technological and financial hegemony.

On the other hand, the U.S. employs civil asset forfeiture procedures, directly filing lawsuits against Bitcoin assets themselves, bypassing judicial control over suspects, and this system shifts the burden of proof onto the asset holders, requiring them to prove innocence. Often, cases are tried in absentia, restricting defendants’ rights to defend themselves; moreover, the legal boundaries of new on-chain evidence collection methods lack clear judicial review. This “seize first, prove later” approach may constitute “pre-judgment,” and while it aims to enhance law enforcement effectiveness, it insufficiently safeguards individual procedural rights.

In conclusion

The Chen Zhi case will eventually come to an end, but if the crypto industry cannot effectively cut ties with black markets, what awaits it may not be the rise of “digital gold,” but the stigmatization as “high-risk assets.”

The future crypto world will no longer belong to the most anonymous, but to the most compliant, transparent, and responsible builders. After all, in a society governed by the rule of law, there is no freedom without responsibility, and no security without risk awareness.