Introduction
China just lobbed a serious accusation at Washington: you nicked our Bitcoin. We’re talking 127,000 BTC—worth roughly $13 billion today—that vanished from a Chinese mining pool back in 2020. China’s cybersecurity watchdog reckons the US government didn’t just seize stolen crypto; they claim American authorities were in on the heist from the start. The US? They’re calling it legitimate law enforcement. Either way, this Bitcoin mystery is turning into a full-blown diplomatic spat with billions on the line.
What Actually Happened to the Stolen Bitcoin?
Here’s the timeline that’s got everyone’s attention.
The 2020 Hack Nobody Noticed
In 2020, someone made off with 127,000 Bitcoin from LuBian, a Chinese mining pool. The coins were linked to Chen Zhi, chairman of Cambodia’s Prince Group, who’s now facing US charges for allegedly running a massive crypto fraud operation.
But here’s the weird bit: the stolen Bitcoin just… sat there. For nearly four years, nobody touched it. The hack flew completely under the radar.
The 2024 Plot Twist
Fast forward to mid-2024. The Bitcoin stash suddenly moved to new wallets. Blockchain sleuth Arkham Intelligence flagged those wallets as belonging to the US government. That’s when China’s National Computer Virus Emergency Response Centre (CVERC) started asking uncomfortable questions.
China’s Explosive Claims About US Involvement
CVERC released a technical report on Sunday making some pretty bold accusations.
“State-Level Hacking Organisation”
According to CVERC’s analysis—and reported by the Global Times, a Chinese state-owned newspaper—the original hack used seriously advanced tools. We’re talking sophisticated stuff that suggests a “state-level hacking organisation” was behind it.
The implication? China’s hinting the US government wasn’t just the repo man collecting stolen goods. They’re suggesting American intelligence might’ve been involved from day one, with the 2024 “seizure” being the final act in a long-running operation.
Challenging the Official Story
The US Department of Justice maintains this was straightforward: they seized criminal proceeds as part of a legitimate investigation into Chen Zhi’s alleged fraud network.
China’s not buying it. CVERC argues the seizure timeline, the technical fingerprints, and the four-year dormancy period all point to something more coordinated than standard law enforcement.
Why This Bitcoin Battle Matters
Beyond the eye-watering dollar figure, this dispute touches some seriously sensitive nerves.
Crypto as a Geopolitical Weapon
If China’s allegations hold any water, it means cryptocurrency isn’t just disrupting finance—it’s becoming a tool in the great power playbook. Bitcoin’s pseudonymous nature makes it perfect for covert operations, whether you’re stealing it or seizing it.
The Trust Problem
For crypto holders, especially those in countries with tense US relations, this whole saga raises uncomfortable questions. If a state actor can orchestrate a hack and the seizure four years later, what does that mean for Bitcoin’s supposed neutrality?
US-China Relations Take Another Hit
As if trade wars and tech sanctions weren’t enough, now we’ve got duelling narratives over a $13 billion crypto heist. China views this as a provocative act. The US sees it as routine law enforcement. Neither side’s backing down.
What Happens Next?
Don’t expect this mystery to wrap up neatly.
The blockchain evidence is public—anyone can trace those 127,000 Bitcoin. But attribution? That’s where things get murky. Proving who executed the original hack and whether the US seizure was legitimate law enforcement or something shadier is nearly impossible without classified intelligence.
What’s certain: this case is now Exhibit A in arguments about cryptocurrency regulation, cross-border enforcement, and how digital assets complicate international relations.
The Bottom Line
China’s accusing the US of stealing $13 billion in Bitcoin. America says they seized criminal proceeds. The truth? Probably buried under layers of classified intel and blockchain complexity.
What we know for sure: 127,000 Bitcoin changed hands twice—once in a 2020 hack, again in a 2024 “seizure”—and now two superpowers are pointing fingers. Whether you believe this was a state-sponsored heist or legitimate law enforcement probably depends on which side of the Pacific you’re standing.
Want to stay ahead of crypto’s wildest stories? Bookmark our finance section for the latest on digital assets, regulatory drama, and the billion-dollar mysteries shaking the industry.
FAQ
Q1: How much is 127,000 Bitcoin worth today?
A: At current prices, roughly $13 billion. When the Bitcoin was originally stolen in 2020, it was worth significantly less—highlighting just how much this stash has appreciated while sitting dormant.
Q2: Who is Chen Zhi and why does he matter?
A: Chen Zhi is the chairman of Cambodia’s Prince Group and is currently under US indictment for allegedly running a large-scale cryptocurrency fraud scheme. The stolen Bitcoin was originally tied to him, making him central to the US government’s legal justification for the seizure.
Q3: Can stolen Bitcoin really sit untouched for four years?
A: Absolutely. Unlike traditional bank accounts, Bitcoin wallets don’t expire or get frozen automatically. Thieves often let stolen crypto sit dormant to avoid detection, waiting for the heat to die down before moving funds.
Q4: What tools would a “state-level hacking organisation” use?
A: We’re talking zero-day exploits, advanced persistent threat (APT) techniques, and custom malware designed to breach high-security targets. These aren’t script kiddie tools—they’re sophisticated capabilities typically associated with government intelligence agencies.
Q5: Will we ever know who really hacked LuBian?
A: Probably not with certainty. Blockchain analysis can track the money, but definitively attributing cyberattacks to specific actors—especially state-sponsored ones—requires classified intelligence that rarely goes public. This mystery might stay unsolved.
DISCLAIMER
Effective Date: 15th July 2025
The information provided on this website is for informational and educational purposes only and reflects the personal opinions of the author(s). It is not intended as financial, investment, tax, or legal advice.
We are not certified financial advisers. None of the content on this website constitutes a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any financial product, asset, or service. You should not rely on any information provided here to make financial decisions.
We strongly recommend that you:
- Conduct your own research and due diligence
- Consult with a qualified financial adviser or professional before making any investment or financial decisions
While we strive to ensure that all information is accurate and up to date, we make no guarantees about the completeness, reliability, or suitability of any content on this site.
By using this website, you acknowledge and agree that we are not responsible for any financial loss, damage, or decisions made based on the content presented.
MORE NEWS
Disclosure & Editorial Standards
MJBurrows is not authorised or regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The content on this website — including articles, calculators, and tools — is for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute personal financial, investment, tax, or legal advice and does not take into account your individual circumstances, financial situation, or objectives.
Nothing on this site is a personal recommendation to buy, sell, hold, or otherwise deal in any financial product, asset, or service. You should always conduct your own research and seek advice from a qualified, FCA-regulated financial adviser before making any financial decisions.
Our calculators produce estimates based on simplified models using HMRC-published rates for the current tax year. They cannot account for every individual circumstance and should not be relied upon as exact figures. Tax rules and rates may change — verify current rates with HMRC or a qualified tax adviser.
Projections are not guarantees. Where our tools show future values (investment growth, pension projections, compound interest), these are hypothetical illustrations based on assumed growth rates. Past performance does not guarantee future results. The value of investments can go down as well as up.
Market data displayed on this site is provided by third-party sources including Twelve Data, Yahoo Finance, and CoinGecko. We do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of third-party data.
This content is designed for UK residents and reflects UK tax rules, thresholds, and legislation. It may not apply to other jurisdictions.
Using this website does not create a professional-client relationship of any kind. MJBurrows is not responsible for any financial loss, damage, or decision made based on the content presented. By using this site, you accept these terms.
This disclaimer may be updated from time to time without prior notice. Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.
MJBurrows is an independent UK personal finance publication, written and edited by Matthew Burrows. There is no parent company, no investor group, and no advertising sales team — decisions about what to cover and how to frame it are made by Matthew alone. Our full Editorial Policy sets out how the site operates in detail.
Commercial model. As of April 2026, MJBurrows generates no revenue. The site carries no display advertising, no affiliate links, no sponsored content, no paid product placements, and no pay-for-coverage arrangements. If this changes in future, it will be disclosed openly on the Editorial Policy page.
Sources. Articles and tools reference primary sources — HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), gov.uk, the Bank of England, the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Companies House, and UK government departmental publications (DWP, Treasury). Calculator data uses HMRC-published rates for the 2026/27 tax year. Market data (tickers, asset prices) is provided by Twelve Data, Yahoo Finance, and CoinGecko.
Verification. Every published article is fact-checked before going live. Numerical claims are traced to their primary source, quotes are checked against the original speaker or document, and calculator outputs are tested against HMRC worked examples. See our verification and accuracy policy for the full process.
Corrections. If you spot an error, please report it via the Corrections page. A three-tier severity system commits to specific response times:
- Tier 1 — Urgent (material reader harm, defamatory statements, regulatory or legal issues): acknowledged within 24 hours, page actioned within 24 hours, correction published within 48 hours of confirmation.
- Tier 2 — High (significant factual errors that misinform readers): acknowledged within 3 working days, correction published within 7 working days of confirmation.
- Tier 3 — Standard (minor factual errors, dated references, missing context): acknowledged within 7 working days, correction published at the next regular content review (within the quarter).
Significant corrections are logged on the public Corrections log.
Updates and review cadence. Calculators are reviewed at least quarterly, plus event-driven updates when HMRC publishes new rates (Budget, Autumn Statement, new tax year). Guides are reviewed at least twice a year, with major rewrites whenever underlying regulation changes. Tax-year-sensitive content is prioritised for review at the April tax-year transition.
Get in touch. For editorial enquiries — corrections, story tips, reader questions — the address is contact@mjburrows.com. The contact page is at mjburrows.com/contact. Every email is read personally by Matthew.
