On October 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the seizure of approximately 127,271 Bitcoin (BTC), valued at around $15 billion based on recent market prices, from Cambodian tycoon Chen Zhi, the founder and chairman of Prince Holding Group. (See: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/media/1416291/dl ) This marks the largest cryptocurrency seizure in DOJ history and is tied to allegations of a massive "pig-butchering" scam network involving forced labor compounds in Cambodia. Chen Zhi was indicted on charges of wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy, with the schemes dating back to around 2015 and victimizing people worldwide, including over 250 U.S. residents. The scams, known as "sha zhu pan" in Chinese, involved trafficked workers held against their will in compounds like Jinbei, Golden Fortune, and Mango Park, where they were forced to perpetrate online cryptocurrency investment fraud. Proceeds were laundered through shell companies, online gambling, and cryptocurrency mining operations, including entities like Warp Data in Laos and Lubian in China. Blockchain analysis by the FBI linked the funds to these illicit activities, showing techniques like "spraying" (disaggregating funds) and "funneling" (reconsolidating them) to obscure origins. Notably, a significant portion of the seized BTC reportedly originated from a "theft" connected to Iran-China Bitcoin mining operations. The U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also designated Prince Group and its affiliates as a transnational criminal organization, blocking their access to the U.S. financial system. The UK imposed similar sanctions on Chen Zhi and related entities. The BTC has been transferred to U.S. government-controlled wallets, adding to the U.S.'s holdings, which now exceed $37 billion in Bitcoin according to some reports. The seized BTC was previously held in the following 25 wallet addresses (as detailed in the forfeiture complaint at https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/media/1416291/dl ), grouped into 13 clusters based on funding patterns. The total amounts per address are approximate as of the 2020 analysis: Address Amount (BTC) 3Pja5FPK1wFB9LkWWJai8XYL1qjbqqT9Ye 20452.85228 3FrM1He2ZDbsSKmYpEZQNGjFTLMgCZZkaf 14111.92546835 3B1u4PsuFzww1P8if5jYmitXxpMs2EMSqt 2999.09118947 3JJ8b7voMPSPChHazdHkrZMqxC7Cb4vNk2 1000.08105870 3PWNGS2357TnjRX7FpewqR3e3qsWwpFrJH 0.00736862 34Jpa4Eu3ApoPVUKNTN2WeuXVVq1jzxgPi 14139.260 338uPVW8drux5gSemDS4gFLSGrSfAiEvpX 9099.01146835 3J4sTPyD1g6KvNUSJxjwLs4iaPeDPqxUZr 499.90936500 33uEsaGLcF9H46Dvzx1kMnuMCQ13ndkAjV 3000.09125022 3KabDvdetZXDHNm9HXowLc9SppiSXKn7UU 9500.99220072 38Md7BghVmV7XUUT1Vt9CvVcc5ssMD6ojt 15033.29416267 3GaB3nRWA1PLc3XQkkbpVtFwYYZEuMxD4i 0.02415042 32i6n2vXhjvJg1vniURFy7A5VK6eG6oDgg 3000.09118974 3HuUiXmKN3beQSoM97kWjK1fesWWJvKvaZ 4500.00841044 34MFtk9iMxYcUPZWXHfiGfqz4o7X3kpJbV 0.5084661 3LjTXe31gepN8nW3AZyKpyD2QwbtmfjNwm 156.04996844 3MHa8JJ3bu8j3x3iQHhqsrZvk1EjBQmC78 2700.44863780 3AWpzKtkHfWsiv9RGXKA3Z8951LefsUGXQ 10500.04293955 34KYo7VdVr5CJ7m4hYhH9RpwqXhbsTrw4T 4500.00941044 3DdFSGcXaP2rZ9CaL3tjnqRARvQ5K3VW4a 251.6000482 39B6oSa58qNpFMGpuowtRHAYp3fM4ghXRq 212.5930613 3NmHmQte2rP8pS54U3B8LPYQKkpG1pFF69 8611.07446862 3BA3PEF4BMoy9y3kdMRUdMhL8Gp24vikhF 2.16989588 389JrNcn8trYgYi2EtHi4X7bTCqtVbep86 1500.01255361 339khCuymVi4FKbW9hCHkH3CQwdopXiTvA 1500.00 As of the current date, Bitcoin's price is approximately $110,418 USD per BTC putting the total seized value near $14-15 billion. The crimes alleged in this case center on large-scale "pig-butchering" (or "sha zhu pan") scams, which are a form of cyber-enabled investment fraud. These schemes typically involve scammers using social engineering tactics —such as building false romantic or professional relationships via messaging apps, social media, or unsolicited contacts—to gain victims' trust over time. Victims are then coerced into transferring funds or cryptocurrency to fraudulent platforms under the pretense of high-return investments in crypto, forex, or other markets. Once funds are obtained, scammers manipulate fake account balances to show illusory profits, demand additional fees for withdrawals, and eventually ghost the victims. Victim demographics aren't detailed extensively in official documents, but they include individuals from the U.S. (e.g., in New York, California) and worldwide, often targeted based on procured phone numbers or social media profiles. One example from the complaint involves a California resident who lost over $400,000 in cryptocurrency transfers between July and September 2021. The broader pig-butchering ecosystem in Southeast Asia is estimated to generate $50–75 billion annually, with Cambodia's portion at $12.5–19 billion. Victims that have not been contacted already can self-identify and file petitions for remission (a process where the DOJ may return forfeited assets to compensate losses) via the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS). Petitions must be submitted to the deciding official (e.g., the Chief of MLARS for judicial forfeitures) within timelines specified in forfeiture notices, often published on forfeiture.gov. Supporting evidence like proof of loss is required, and tracing will help prioritize direct victims over other claimants. If you were the victim of a pig-butchering" (or "sha zhu pan") scam, and you sent Bitcoin to a scammer's wallet, you may be wondering if your Bitcoin ended up being seized in a case such as the above. If you know the scammer BTC address you sent Bitcoin to, you can check to see if there is any tracing between your bitcoin address and one of the above seized addresses by entering both addresses at a tracing website such as: https://bitcoinpaths.com/ If you find a connection, an experienced attorney such as Isaac Safier, Esq. can assist with filing a claim for seizure cases such as this one, ensuring that your claim has the best chance of recovery. Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal, financial, or investment advice. The discussion of cryptocurrency seizures, digital asset tracing, or related enforcement actions is intended to offer general insight into recent legal developments and does not constitute a comprehensive analysis of any specific case or situation. Reading this post or contacting our firm through this website does not create an attorney–client relationship. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal counsel from a qualified attorney familiar with your particular circumstances. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information presented, laws and regulations governing cryptocurrency and asset forfeiture change rapidly, and we make no guarantees as to the completeness or currentness of any content.

Effective January 1, 2023, Jaywalking has been decriminalized. No longer can individuals be detained, searched and cited for Jaywalking (crossing the street outside a designated cross walk) unless a reasonably careful person would realize there was an immediate danger. According to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, "this crucial legislation will protect vulnerable pedestrians against arbitrary, racially-biased, pretextual policing, as well as burdensome fees and fines, and unnecessary, and potentially lethal, interactions with law enforcement AB 2147/ The Freedom To Walk Act promotes the fair and equitable use of streets by: Legalizing crossings outside of a crosswalk or against a traffic light when safe, thereby eliminating fines for safe crossings Preventing police from using jaywalking as a pretext to stop Black and Brown people" The full legislation can be found at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2147 That said, please use common sense and look both ways before crossing any street whether you are exercising your new freedom under AB 2147 or just using a crosswalk. The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter. Some of the information may have changed since publication.

If the exclusionary rules applies to a case, it means the defendant or claimant can make a motion under PC 1538.5 to suppress evidence that was collected in a warrantless search that lacked probable cause. Almost every other state accepts that constitutional protections from illegal search and seizure, and the exclusionary rule, apply in civil asset forfeiture cases. In One 1958 Plymouth Sedan , police stopped and searched a vehicle without probable cause, and found contraband untaxed alcohol in the rear and the trunk. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania , 380 U.S. 693, 696 (1965). The United States Supreme Court unequivocally held that the exclusionary rule applied to civil forfeitures. The California Supreme Court, one year before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in One 1958 Plymouth Sedan , held that the exclusionary rule applied in forfeiture matters and rejected an argument that because forfeiture action is “civil in nature” the exclusionary rule should not apply. “Whatever the label which may be attached to the proceeding, it is apparent that the purpose of the forfeiture is deterrent in nature and that there is a close identity to the aims and objectives of criminal law enforcement.” People v. Reulman , 396 P.2d 706, 708 (1964). People v. Thomas , 566 P.2d 228 (Cal. 1977)(“The exclusionary rule is also applicable to forfeiture proceedings, which, although technically classified as civil proceedings, must be considered criminal proceedings for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment.”). Then, mysteriously, in 1998, without reference or citation to People v. Ruelman , the Fourth District of the California Court of Appeal held that the exclusionary rule did not apply in civil asset forfeiture cases. People v. $241,600 US Currency , 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 588, 594-95. The court based its holding on the fact that “the forfeiture action is an in rem civil proceeding which is not based on a provision requiring the claimant to be found guilty of a criminal offense nor imposing imprisonment as a penalty for a criminal act.” Id . The court also cited the fact that the state need only “prov[e] by a preponderance of the evidence that the innocent third party ‘know or should have known of facts which made the property subject to forfeiture.” Id. The court concluded that “[s]uch provision is not penal in nature.” Id . 48 other states appear to disagree.. except Texas. See Texas case State v. One 2004 Lincoln Navigator , 494 S.W.3d 690 (2016). California and Texas are as far apart as can be on most issues, but when it comes to forfeiture of property without adequate probably cause they find themselves in happy alignment. The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter. Some of the information may have changed since publication.

If you were arrested and it did not result in a conviction, meaning that the case was dropped before you ever went to court, you completed a diversion program or even if you went to court and eventually won your case, you still have an arrest record. In California, having an arrest record shouldn’t affect your employment prospects, in theory.. California law generally prohibits asking a job applicants about an arrest that did not lead to a conviction or about participation in a diversion program. (Labor Code Section 432.7). In addition, The Fair Chance Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2018, has prohibitions on asking about a conviction history before making a job offer (“Ban the Box” law). Even so, many companies, including big gig-economy companies, just ignore the law and reject applicants for unlawful reasons. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing has received more than 300 complaints alleging violations of the law. Why are they flagrantly violating the law? One theory is that it is cheaper to ignore these labor laws than deal with the lawsuits and fall-out caused by some misdeed by an employee who had a previous arrest record. When you apply for a job and get a copy of your CalDoj criminal record back showing an arrest as the only reason for denial, just remember that not all is lost! Here are some things you can do: Get a certificate of “detention only” from the police station that arrested you (if you were never charged). A detention is one step below and arrest but still raises some eyebrows. SEAL YOUR RECORD! You can file a C.A.R.E. Act petition under a new law that went into effect in early 2018 that allows you to seal your record for most purposes. Nearly two years after the C.A.R.E. Act was passed, only a small fraction of eligible people have taken action to seal their record. Given that the process takes several months (time to get a court date, time for the court to send the updated record to the DOJ, etc.) people shouldn’t wait until they are between jobs to seal their records. The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter. Some of the information may have changed since publication.

Car accidents are already stressful enough, without the added burden of vehicle confiscation. You may have sustained injuries that need medical attention, your vehicle may need repairs or replacement due to severe damage, and you might have missed earnings due to needing to stay home and recover. There are countless disruptions that a split-second car accident can cause, both immediately and into the future as you seek to recover and recoup your losses. But what happens if there is a collision, and then your car gets confiscated? Amidst everything else going on, this can be a difficult circumstance to navigate on your own. In such a complicated situation, contacting a lawyer for help might be necessary. About Asset Forfeiture Law enforcement and government agents may seize an owner’s assets if they have a preponderance of evidence that the property was directly linked to criminal activity. Asset forfeiture occurs when the government confiscates someone's property because they believe it is involved in criminal misconduct. If your vehicle was confiscated, it could be because you are suspected of committing a crime related to the accident. The types of property that may be confiscated can include homes, vehicles, computer equipment, cell phones, electronic devices, boats, weapons, money, illegal drugs, machinery, and more. Rights to Your Property Despite it appearing that law enforcement can seize and forfeit assets at will, those affected by this do have their own rights. As an auto accident lawyer would suggest, do not succumb to intimidation or abuse inflicted by law enforcement or other parties. You have the right to be free from unlawful confiscation of your belongings. Federal law does allow seizures of property based on probable cause without a conviction, but state restrictions exist that require a higher burden of proof to perform a seizure. If you are facing a forfeiture hearing, consider seeking help from a reputable law firm immediately, such as Cohen & Cohen . Your lawyer can inform you about your rights to your property and can protect your best interests as you navigate this unfortunate situation. Fighting a Confiscation Dealing with vehicle confiscation after an accident can add more stress to an already challenging predicament. You may not have the knowledge or strength to fight a confiscation, even if you know the outcome could be in your favor. That's why many people turn to a lawyer for assistance; they might otherwise be unable to handle the situation effectively. When lawyers get involved, opposing parties often become more cooperative because they know someone with legal insight has entered the picture. Your lawyer can be your best resource and advocate as you fight an asset forfeiture. If you are struggling due to a vehicle accident and confiscation, it's important to protect your side of the story immediately. The legal procedures and rights related to car accidents and asset forfeiture may vary depending on the jurisdiction. You are encouraged to consult an attorney in your region. The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter. Some of the information may have changed since publication.

Until your bank account gets frozen, logging into online banking and seeing your balance might feel like something you take for granted. Banks usually make sure you have plenty of notice when they are updating their systems and getting into your account is typically only interrupted late at night during software updates. Access to your money seems like a given the rest of the time. But what happens if you try to log on, and your bank says your account has been frozen? How long can the freeze last? Under 12 CFR Part 1005 (Regulation E), Section 1005.11, financial institutions are required to investigate and resolve electronic fund transfer errors within specific timeframes. Upon receiving notice of an error from a consumer, the institution must investigate the alleged error, determine whether an error occurred, and report the results of the investigation to the consumer within ten business days. If the institution is unable to complete its investigation within this period, it may provisionally credit the consumer's account for the amount of the alleged error, provided the investigation is concluded within forty-five days of receiving the notice of error. § 1005.11 Procedures for resolving errors., Nero v. Uphold HQ Inc., 688 F. Supp. 3d 134, In re Bank of Am. Cal. Unemployment Benefits Litig., 674 F. Supp. 3d 884. Additionally, the financial institution may require the consumer to provide written confirmation of the error within ten business days of an oral notice. If such confirmation is required, the institution must inform the consumer of this requirement and provide the address for submitting the confirmation at the time of the oral notification § 1005.11 Procedures for resolving errors.. These timeframes ensure that consumers are promptly informed of the resolution of their claims while allowing financial institutions sufficient time to conduct a thorough investigation. Under federal law, the duration for which a bank can freeze an account to investigate fraud is not explicitly defined in terms of a specific time limit. However, banks are generally allowed to freeze accounts if they suspect irregular, unauthorized, or unlawful activities, as long as the freeze is necessary to complete their investigation. For example, in Mohamed v. Bank of Am., N.A., 771 F. Supp. 3d 695, the court noted that the contractual agreement between the bank and the account holder did not define what constitutes a "reasonable" amount of time for a freeze, but a 29-day freeze was deemed within the contractual timeframe for investigations. Mohamed v. Bank of Am., N.A., 771 F. Supp. 3d 695. Similarly, in Nix v. NASA Fed. Credit Union, 200 F. Supp. 3d 578, the court upheld the bank's right to freeze an account under its agreement when suspicious activity was detected, without specifying a maximum duration. Nix v. NASA Fed. Credit Union, 200 F. Supp. 3d 578. Additionally, under federal regulations like 31 USCS § 5318, banks are required to comply with anti-money laundering programs and may freeze accounts as part of their compliance efforts, but no specific time limit is provided. 31 USCS § 5318, 31 USCS § 5318A. Under the various relevant case law, the duration must align with the terms of the account agreement and be reasonable in the context of the investigation. Courts have generally upheld freezes as long as they are tied to legitimate suspicions and conducted within a reasonable timeframe. The duration for which a bank can freeze an account for investigative purposes under California law depends on the specific legal authority under which the freeze is imposed. Under Cal Gov Code § 7476, a court may order a financial institution to withhold notification to the customer for 30 days upon finding that such notice would impede a grand jury investigation. This withholding can be extended in additional 30-day increments until the end of the grand jury's term or the filing of a criminal complaint, provided the court makes the necessary findings for each extension. Cal Gov Code § 7476. Cal Gov Code § 7480 allows for the sealing of financial records obtained through an ex parte application for 60 days, with the possibility of 60-day extensions. These extensions can continue for up to one year or until the investigation is terminated, whichever occurs sooner, upon a showing to the court that the extension is necessary for the investigation Cal Gov Code § 7480. Additionally, under Cal Gov Code § 7473, notification to the customer regarding the examination of financial records can be delayed for up to 90 days (two 30-day extensions after the initial 30 days) upon a showing of good cause. Further extensions, up to an additional 90 days, may be granted upon a showing of extreme necessity, making the maximum delay period 180 days. Cal Gov Code § 7473. Banks in California can legally freeze an account to investigate suspected fraud for a limited period, depending on the circumstances and applicable laws. Under Cal Wel & Inst Code § 15630.2, if a financial institution delays a disbursement or transaction due to suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult, the freeze can last up to 15 business days. This period may be extended to a maximum of 25 business days if requested by an adult protective services agency, local law enforcement, or the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, unless terminated earlier by these entities or a court order. Additionally, a court may further extend the freeze or order other protective measures upon petition by relevant parties. Cal Wel & Inst Code § 15630.2. In cases involving suspected fraudulent activities, banks may also cooperate with law enforcement or district attorneys under specific conditions. For example, law enforcement may request account information for a period of 30 days prior to and 30 days following the alleged fraudulent activity, provided they certify in writing that a crime report has been filed People v. Muchmore, 92 Cal. App. 3d 32. However, banks are generally required to process transactions promptly and may face limitations on delaying transactions due to statutory deadlines and privacy concerns. Kurtz-Ahlers, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., 48 Cal. App. 5th 952. These statutes collectively indicate that the duration of a freeze or delay in notification depends on the specific circumstances of the investigation and the court's findings, with maximum timeframes varying based on the legal authority invoked. The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter. Some of the information provided may have changed since publication.