The NFT Crash Investigations: Money Laundering Through Digital Art
The collapse of the non-fungible token (NFT) market was not a slow bleed; it was a structural disintegration masked by billions in fake volume. Between January 2022 and the close of 2024, the sector witnessed a 93% eradication of trading volume, plummeting from a peak of $16. 57 billion in monthly sales to a hollow $197 million. These NFT crash investigations began not with the art, but with the exit doors that were welded shut by algorithmic contagion and wash trading cartels.
In early 2022, the market appeared strong, yet the data reveals a liquidity mirage. While headlines touted record-breaking sales, on-chain metrics from Dune Analytics indicate that up to 80% of the trading volume in January 2022 was wash trading—artificial transactions where a single entity trades an asset between controlled wallets to prices and farm platform rewards. The “liquidity” that retail investors believed in was phantom capital, designed to lure exit liquidity before the inevitable crash.
The Wash Trading Vector: Manufacturing Volume
The primary method for this deception was the “token farming” loop. Marketplaces like LooksRare incentivized activity by rewarding traders with proprietary tokens based on daily volume. This created a perverse incentive structure where wash trading became mathematically profitable. In January 2022, wash trading on LooksRare accounted for approximately 98% of the platform’s total volume. Traders were not buying art; they were buying and selling their own assets to harvest yield, creating a false signal of market demand that deceived retail entrants.
| Metric | January 2022 (Peak) | May 2022 (Post-Terra) | Decline / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly Volume | $16. 57 Billion | ~$4. 0 Billion | -75% in 4 months |
| Wash Trading Share | ~80% of Total Volume | Variable | widespread Manipulation |
| Active Wallets | ~960, 000 (Q1 Peak) | ~49, 000 (Weekly Low) | -88% Drop in Active Users |
| Avg. Sale Price | $3, 894 (May 1) | $293 (July 10) | -92% Valuation Collapse |
The Contagion Events: Terra and FTX
Two specific macroeconomic shocks punctured this inflated bubble. The was the collapse of the Terra (LUNA) ecosystem in May 2022. The de-pegging of the UST stablecoin wiped out over $40 billion in value from the broader crypto market, triggering a liquidity crunch that hit speculative assets hardest. In the weeks following the Terra collapse, daily NFT sales volume declined by 92%, and the number of active wallets transacting in the space fell by 88%.
Article image: Money Laundering Through Digital Art: The NFT Crash Investigations
The second blow came in November 2022 with the bankruptcy of FTX. This event did not just remove capital; it destroyed the “wealth effect” that had propped up high-end collections. Blue-chip assets like the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) saw floor prices crater as leveraged holders were forced to liquidate. Data from NFT Price Floor shows that in the immediate aftermath of the FTX insolvency, collections like Damien Hirst’s “The Currency” fell 12. 6%, while Bored Ape Kennel Club dropped 8. 3% in days, signaling a rush for liquidity that simply did not exist.
The Supply-Demand Inversion
the crash was a catastrophic oversupply. By 2025, the number of NFTs in circulation had surged to 1. 34 billion, a 3, 400% increase from 2021. Yet, buyer demand had evaporated. The market shifted from a high-value, low-velocity economy to a “junk bond” status, where 95% of collections held zero monetary value. The exit liquidity had, leaving millions of holders with illiquid assets that could not be sold at any price.
“The wash trading problem is nothing new to crypto. Throughout 2022 though, it has become particularly pertinent to the world of NFTs. At its height in January 2022, more than 80% of volume was wash trading.” — Hildobby, Dune Analytics Data Researcher (2022)
This act was not an accident of market pattern. It was a direct result of widespread wash trading that inflated valuations to unsustainable levels, followed by a liquidity withdrawal triggered by the collapse of central crypto banking structures. The money did not just disappear; it was extracted by those who understood that the volume was fake long before the retail market realized the exit doors were locked.
The Liquidity Mirage: Deconstructing the Wash Trading Engine
The collapse of the NFT market was not a loss of faith; it was the mathematical unraveling of a manipulated ledger. While the broader market believed in a “liquidity emergency,” forensic analysis of blockchain data between 2022 and 2024 reveals a more sinister reality: the liquidity never existed in the place. Investigations into the order books of LooksRare and Blur—the two platforms that aggressively challenged OpenSea’s dominance—expose a widespread reliance on wash trading to fabricate volume. While conservative forensic models suggest that at least 53 percent of the combined volume on these platforms was artificial, deeper on-chain scrutiny indicates the true figures were frequently far higher, serving as a laundering method for both reputation and capital.
The mechanics of this deception were built directly into the incentive structures of the platforms. Unlike traditional markets where volume represents organic demand, LooksRare and Blur incentivized “trading rewards” and “airdrop points,” paying users to trade assets back and forth. This created a closed loop where a single entity could control both the buy and sell side of a transaction, generating massive nominal volume while incurring only transaction fees—which were frequently reimbursed or outweighed by the value of the reward tokens.
LooksRare: The 95% Illusion
Launched in January 2022, LooksRare initiated what is known as a “vampire attack” on OpenSea, offering LOOKS tokens to users based on their daily trading volume. The market responded not with organic adoption, but with industrial- wash trading. Data from CryptoSlam confirms that in the platform’s opening months, up to 95 percent of its activity stemmed from wash trading. In January 2022 alone, the platform generated $11. 33 billion in trading volume—a figure that eclipsed OpenSea—yet the vast majority of this capital was simply cycling between controlled wallets.
Specific collections became vectors for this manipulation. The “Meebits” and “Terraforms” collections, which carry zero royalties, were frequently used as wash trading vehicles. Forensic analysis identifies wallets that traded the same NFT back and forth dozens of times in a single hour, purely to harvest LOOKS tokens. This was not speculation; it was arbitrage. The volume was real on the blockchain, but the demand was a phantom. When the value of the LOOKS token collapsed, the volume evaporated instantly, proving that the market activity was never tethered to the asset’s intrinsic value.
Blur and the Airdrop Industrial Complex
If LooksRare introduced the wash trading model, Blur industrialized it. Launching in late 2022, Blur overtook OpenSea by offering “care packages” and points towards a future BLUR token airdrop. This system incentivized “bidding liquidity”—placing offers on NFTs near the floor price. While this appeared to deepen market liquidity, it encouraged traders to bid on their own assets or pattern high-value NFTs to maximize points.
On February 20, 2023, days after the BLUR token launch, wash trading on the platform spiked to constitute over 85 percent of the day’s total volume, approximately $295 million. Unlike LooksRare, which was transparently wash-heavy, Blur’s mechanics were more subtle, blending organic “pro-trader” activity with wash volume. yet, the result was identical: a distorted market signal that lured retail investors into a venue where the “market depth” was composed of mercenaries ready to pull liquidity the moment the incentives dried up.
| Marketplace | Primary Incentive method | Peak Wash Trading % (Daily Volume) | Est. Wash Volume (Jan ’22 – Jan ’23) | Primary Wash Vectors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LooksRare | LOOKS Token Rewards | 95. 0% | $22. 2 Billion+ | Meebits, Terraforms (0% Royalty) |
| Blur | Airdrop Points / Bidding | 85. 0% | $3. 4 Billion (Q1 2023) | Blue-Chip Floor Sweeps |
| X2Y2 | Token Emissions | 87. 0% | $15. 0 Billion+ | Generic Derivatives |
| OpenSea | None (Organic) | < 2. 4% | Negligible | N/A |
The Regulatory Blind Spot
This artificial volume served a dual purpose. For the platforms, it inflated valuation metrics, allowing them to raise venture capital at valuations exceeding $1 billion. For the traders, it provided a veil of legitimacy. High volume suggests a healthy, liquid market, which is the primary requirement for laundering illicit funds without raising suspicion. By mixing dirty capital with the torrent of wash trades, bad actors could “clean” funds under the guise of high-frequency trading strategies. The 53 percent baseline for artificial volume is therefore not just a metric of market; it is the measure of a widespread failure to distinguish between commerce and crime.
The Lazarus Protocol: North Korean Sanctions Evasion via Digital Collectibles
The intersection of state-sponsored cyberwarfare and the digital art market represents one of the most sophisticated money laundering channels in modern financial history. While Western regulators focused on Know Your Customer (KYC) for centralized exchanges, the Lazarus Group—a cybercrime syndicate operated by the Reconnaissance General Bureau of North Korea—weaponized the anonymity of the NFT sector to fund a nuclear weapons program. Intelligence data from Chainalysis confirms that in 2025 alone, North Korean actors stole a record $2. 02 billion in cryptocurrency. This figure represents a 51% increase from the $1. 3 billion stolen in 2024. The cumulative total of DPRK-linked theft exceeds $6. 75 billion, with of these funds siphoned through the exploitation of digital collectible infrastructure and gaming.
Article image: Money Laundering Through Digital Art: The NFT Crash Investigations
The operational model is distinct from typical financial crime. Rather than simply buying assets to hide wealth, Lazarus operatives deploy “TraderTraitor” malware and sophisticated phishing networks to compromise the platforms themselves. A December 2022 investigation by SlowMist revealed a sprawling network of nearly 500 phishing domains registered by North Korean actors. These sites were designed to mimic legitimate NFT marketplaces like OpenSea, X2Y2, and Rarible. By luring investors with “malicious mints”—fake opportunities to generate new digital art—the attackers drained wallets of both NFTs and Ethereum. One single decoy site identified in the probe generated $367, 000 in profit from 1, 055 stolen NFTs. These assets were not held for appreciation. They were immediately liquidated into Ether and fed into mixing services to sever the on-chain link to the crime.
The Liquidation Funnel: From JPEG to Ballistic Funding
The laundering process follows a rigid, algorithmic pattern that intelligence firms have dubbed the “45-day wash.” Once an NFT is stolen or a is breached, the assets are converted to Ethereum within hours. The funds are then moved through a series of mixers. Following the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions on Tornado Cash in August 2022, Lazarus pivoted to alternative. In 2023 and 2024, the group heavily utilized Sinbad. io and later YoMix to obfuscate transaction trails. The data shows a clear adaptation strategy: as soon as one mixer is seized by U. S. authorities, traffic shifts almost instantly to a new, frequently Russian-hosted alternative.
| Year | Total Stolen (USD) | Primary Vector | Key Laundering method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | $1. 65 Billion | DeFi (Ronin) | Tornado Cash |
| 2023 | $1. 0 Billion | Wallet Exploits (Atomic) | Sinbad. io / Cross-chain |
| 2024 | $1. 34 Billion | Centralized Exchanges (DMM) | YoMix / Bitcoin Mixers |
| 2025 | $2. 02 Billion | Infrastructure Breach (Bybit) | OTC Brokers (Huione) |
The March 2022 breach of the Ronin Network serves as the foundational case study for this protocol. The Ronin sidechain was built specifically to support Axie Infinity, the world’s largest NFT-based video game. Lazarus hackers compromised five validator nodes to drain $620 million in USDC and Ethereum. This was not a random attack on a financial institution. It was a targeted strike on the liquidity engine of the digital collectibles market. The stolen funds were subsequently traced through over 12, 000 distinct addresses. This event proved that the NFT ecosystem was not just a speculative bubble for retail investors but a serious infrastructure target for nation-state actors seeking hard currency.
Recent indictments have further exposed the human element of this. In 2024 and 2025, the FBI warned that North Korean IT workers were infiltrating crypto and NFT projects by posing as freelance developers. These operatives would vulnerabilities into smart contracts or gain access to multi-signature wallets. Once hired, they would wait for the project’s treasury to fill with user funds from NFT sales before executing an exit scam or a drain. This “insider threat” vector allows the regime to bypass external security perimeters entirely. The revenue generated is substantial. A 2025 UN Panel of Experts report estimated that 50% of North Korea’s foreign currency earnings are derived from these cyber-operations.
“The DPRK’s laundering methods are characterized by the admission of stolen funds into Chinese-language services,, and dedicated OTC networks. This method stands apart from most other hackers. Their movement of funds displays structured stages that usually last 45 days.” — Chainalysis 2025 Crypto Crime Report.
The connection between digital art and sanctions evasion is absolute. NFTs provide the perfect cover for the initial stage of the laundering process. High-value sales of digital art are subjective and unregulated, allowing actors to wash illicit funds through “wash trading” rings that mimic legitimate market activity. While the crash of 2022 destroyed the retail value of these assets, the infrastructure built to trade them remains a primary highway for illicit capital flight. The $1. 5 billion hack of Bybit in February 2025 demonstrated that even as the NFT market cooled, the techniques honed during the boom—specifically the exploitation of signing method and —remain the most potent weapons in the Lazarus arsenal.
Insider Trading Precedents: The Nathaniel Chastain Verdict and Beyond
The Department of Justice’s campaign to police the digital asset market initially appeared to secure a decisive victory in 2023 with the conviction of Nathaniel Chastain, a former product manager at OpenSea. Heralded as the “insider trading” case involving non-fungible tokens (NFTs), the prosecution relied on a application of wire fraud statutes to bypass the legal ambiguity of whether NFTs constitute securities. yet, the subsequent unraveling of this verdict in mid-2025 exposed the fragility of using traditional financial laws to regulate the unclear mechanics of the NFT market.
Chastain’s scheme, executed between June and September 2021, was technically simple but legally complex. As the head of product at OpenSea, the largest NFT marketplace by volume, Chastain controlled which collections appeared on the platform’s homepage—a placement that reliably triggered a spike in asset value. Investigators found that Chastain purchased 45 NFTs shortly before they were featured, selling them immediately after the homepage listing for a profit of roughly 15. 98 Ether (approximately $57, 000 at the time). In May 2023, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York convicted him of wire fraud and money laundering. Three months later, he was sentenced to three months in prison, three months of home confinement, and ordered to pay a $50, 000 fine.
The conviction was initially framed by U. S. Attorney Damian Williams as a warning that “insider trading—in any marketplace—can not be tolerated.” Yet, the legal foundation of the case collapsed on appeal. On July 31, 2025, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated Chastain’s conviction in a ruling that fundamentally altered the prosecutorial for digital assets. The appellate court determined that the confidential information Chastain used—knowledge of which NFTs would be featured—did not constitute “property” under federal wire fraud statutes because it absence “commercial value” to OpenSea itself. Since OpenSea did not trade its own inventory and generated revenue solely from transaction fees, the court ruled that Chastain’s front-running did not deprive the company of an economic asset, regardless of the reputational damage or ethical breach involved.
This reversal highlighted a serious gap in regulatory enforcement: without a clear classification of NFTs as securities, prosecutors are forced to shoehorn market manipulation cases into wire fraud charges, which require proving a specific type of property theft. The Chastain ruling stands in clear contrast to the case of Ishan Wahi, a former product manager at Coinbase. Wahi, who tipped off his brother and a friend regarding upcoming token listings, was sentenced to two years in prison in May 2023. Unlike Chastain, Wahi pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and the assets involved were cryptocurrencies that the SEC more aggressively argued were securities. The in outcomes show the legal volatility facing prosecutors; while Wahi is serving time, Chastain’s conduct was deemed outside the scope of the specific federal fraud statutes charged.
Comparative Analysis of Digital Asset Insider Trading Cases
| Defendant | Role / Platform | Scheme Details | Illicit Profit | Legal Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nathaniel Chastain | Product Manager, OpenSea | Front-running homepage features | ~16 ETH ($57, 000) | Convicted May 2023; Sentenced to 3 months; Conviction Vacated July 2025. |
| Ishan Wahi | Product Manager, Coinbase | Tipping on token listings | ~$1. 5 Million | Pled Guilty; Sentenced to 24 months prison (May 2023). |
| Nikhil Wahi | Trader (Ishan’s Brother) | Trading on tips | ~$892, 500 | Pled Guilty; Sentenced to 10 months prison (Jan 2023). |
The vacating of the Chastain verdict in 2025 forced the Southern District of New York to reassess its strategy for digital collectibles. While the Department of Justice successfully utilized the “right to control” theory of fraud in previous financial cases, the Second Circuit’s rejection of this theory in the context of NFT marketplaces suggests that future prosecutions may require explicit legislation rather than creative interpretations of the wire fraud statute. The ruling signaled that while front-running NFT listings may be a violation of terms of service or grounds for termination, it does not automatically meet the federal threshold for criminal fraud unless the employer suffers a direct economic loss of proprietary information.
This legal gray zone has left of the NFT market to internal manipulation. With the precedent set that “confidential business information” must have inherent commercial value to the holder to warrant wire fraud charges, platforms are under pressure to restructure their internal data policies to monetize or explicitly value listing information, creating the “property interest” necessary for future federal prosecution.
Tornado Cash Intersections: Mixing Services as Funding Sources for Minting
The collapse of the NFT market revealed a structural reliance on obfuscated capital. While public attention focused on the astronomical sales figures of 2021 and 2022, a quieter, more widespread method was operating beneath the surface: the use of cryptocurrency mixers to fund the initial minting of digital assets. Investigations into the 2022 crash vectors expose that services like Tornado Cash were not exit doors for criminals to cash out; they were the entry points for wash trading cartels to inject liquidity into the market without revealing their identity.
Data from blockchain analytics firm Elliptic indicates that prior to its sanctioning by the U. S. Treasury in August 2022, Tornado Cash was the source of $137. 6 million in cryptoassets processed by NFT marketplaces. This figure represents a direct injection of anonymized funds into the digital art ecosystem. The primary utility of this capital was not art collection. It was “,” a serious stage in money laundering where illicit funds are distanced from their source. By funding fresh, anonymous wallets with mixed Ethereum, actors could mint thousands of NFTs from new collections. These assets were then sold on secondary markets to “clean” wallets owned by the same entity, transforming dirty ETH into legitimate trading profits.
The mechanics of this operation relied on the “fresh wallet” phenomenon. In early 2022, project launches frequently saw thousands of unique wallet addresses participating in a mint. On-chain analysis reveals that a significant percentage of these addresses were funded within hours of the minting event, frequently with identical amounts of ETH transferred from mixer contracts. Chainalysis identified 262 users who sold NFTs to self-financed addresses more than 25 times. These “self-financed” trades are the hallmark of wash trading, yet the funding source for the buying wallets was frequently obscured by mixers. The mixer breaks the on-chain link between the wash trader’s main treasury and the puppet wallets used to volume.
| Year | Total Illicit Crypto Volume | Funds Sent to Mixers | NFT Marketplace Inflow from Mixers | Primary Mixer Used |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | $18. 0 Billion | $11. 5 Billion | $44. 2 Million | Tornado Cash |
| 2022 | $39. 6 Billion | $7. 8 Billion | $137. 6 Million | Tornado Cash |
| 2023 | $24. 2 Billion | $504. 3 Million | $28. 5 Million | Sinbad / Railgun |
| 2024 | $40. 9 Billion (Est.) | $600. 0 Million+ | $19. 2 Million | Tornado Cash (Resurgent) |
The sanctioning of Tornado Cash by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in August 2022 disrupted these flows but did not eliminate them. The immediate aftermath saw a sharp decline in mixer usage for NFT funding, as major marketplaces like OpenSea and LooksRare implemented frontend censorship to block addresses interacting with sanctioned contracts. Yet the data shows adaptation rather than cessation. In 2023, illicit addresses still sent $22. 2 billion to services, with a shift toward alternative privacy and smaller, less detected mixers. By 2024, even with the sanctions, Tornado Cash volumes began to recover, with illicit actors using the immutable smart contracts directly to fund wallet clusters for new mints.
A definitive example of this funding-to-rug pipeline is the Pixelmon case. While frequently for its disastrous art reveal, the financial architecture of the project highlights the role of mixers in capital flight. After raising over $70 million in a highly anticipated mint, the project founders transferred the bulk of the proceeds through Tornado Cash. This exit strategy mirrors the entry strategy used by wash traders: the mixer serves as the unclear barrier between the public project and the private beneficiary. For the 2022 crash investigation, the serious finding is that the liquidity supporting the floor prices of “blue chip” collections was frequently circular. Money moved from a mixer to a minting wallet, purchased the asset, and then moved back to the mixer or a centralized exchange, creating the illusion of organic demand.
“The mixer does not just hide the criminal. It hides the cartel. When 500 wallets mint a collection simultaneously, and 400 of them were funded by Tornado Cash, you are not looking at a community. You are looking at a single entity manufacturing a market.”
The persistence of this behavior into 2025 demonstrates the limitations of blacklist-based compliance. While centralized exchanges can freeze funds, the decentralized nature of minting contracts allows mixer-funded wallets to participate freely. A 2024 analysis of “free-to-mint” projects—a trend that exploded after the market crash—showed that up to 15% of minters in high-hype collections were funded by addresses with direct mixer interactions. These wallets would mint the free asset, pay the gas fees with mixed ETH, and immediately list the NFT for sale. The resulting profit, paid out in clean ETH from a legitimate buyer, completed the laundering pattern. This method converts “dust” amounts of illicit crypto into clean, traceable sales revenue, bypassing the need for complex schemes.
The intersection of mixers and NFTs remains a primary vector for financial crime in the digital asset space. The crash of 2022 did not end the practice. It stripped away the retail liquidity that masked it. With trading volumes down 93% by the end of 2024, the remaining activity on-chain became more transparently artificial. The data confirms that as long as mixers can fund anonymous wallets, the “mint” can remain a preferred method for introducing illicit capital into the legitimate economy.
The Influencer Matrix: Undisclosed Promotions and SEC Settlements
The liquidity required to wash illicit funds through the NFT market could not be sustained by organic interest alone. It required a manufactured frenzy, a coordinated signal flare to attract retail capital that would serve as the exit liquidity for wash trading cartels. This signal was generated by the “Influencer Matrix”—a complex network of talent agencies, payment processors, and A-list celebrities who promoted digital assets without disclosing their financial incentives. Between 2021 and 2023, this matrix operated as the primary engine for artificial volume, allowing insiders to offload assets at inflated valuations before regulatory bodies intervened.
Article image: Money Laundering Through Digital Art: The NFT Crash Investigations
The method was simple but: create the illusion of elite consensus. When celebrities like Justin Bieber, Madonna, or Paris Hilton publicly “bought” high-value NFTs, it signaled to the market that these assets were stable stores of value. yet, court filings and SEC investigations later alleged that of these transactions were not organic purchases but orchestrated marketing events, frequently facilitated by unclear intermediaries.
The MoonPay “Concierge” Allegations
Central to these allegations was the role of MoonPay, a fintech payment processor that launched a “Concierge” service targeting high-net-worth individuals. In December 2022, a class-action lawsuit filed by Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law alleged that this service functioned as a “front operation” to covertly compensate celebrities for promoting Yuga Labs’ Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC). The complaint detailed a “vast scheme” where celebrities were allegedly gifted NFTs or provided with funds to purchase them, creating a deceptive appearance of independent market demand.
The lawsuit named over 30 defendants, including Kevin Hart, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Steph Curry, accusing them of misleading investors. For instance, the suit claimed that Justin Bieber received a BAYC NFT worth approximately $1. 3 million not as a genuine investment, but as part of a compensated endorsement deal. While Yuga Labs dismissed the claims as “opportunistic and parasitic,” the allegations highlighted a serious vulnerability in the market: the inability of retail traders to distinguish between genuine accumulation and paid promotion.
SEC Enforcement: The “Touting” Crackdown
While the Yuga Labs case focused on civil liability, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched a parallel offensive against undisclosed “touting.” The legal precedent was set not by an NFT project, but by the EthereumMax (EMAX) token, which established the regulatory framework for digital asset promotions. In October 2022, the SEC charged Kim Kardashian for promoting EMAX on Instagram without disclosing the $250, 000 she received for the post. Kardashian settled the charges, agreeing to pay $1. 26 million in penalties and disgorgement.
This enforcement action was followed by a similar charge against NBA Hall of Famer Paul Pierce in February 2023. Pierce settled for $1. 4 million after the SEC found he had tweeted misleading statements about EMAX, including a screenshot of a wallet showing purported profits that were far higher than his actual holdings. These cases were pivotal; they stripped away the defense of “ignorance” and established that digital assets, including NFTs, fell under the anti-touting provisions of federal securities laws.
The NFT-Specific Actions
The regulatory net tightened specifically around NFTs in late 2023. On August 28, 2023, the SEC executed its enforcement action against an NFT issuer, charging Impact Theory, LLC with conducting an unregistered securities offering. The company had raised nearly $30 million by selling “Founder’s Keys,” which they marketed as an investment into the company’s future “Disney-like” empire. Impact Theory settled for $6. 1 million and agreed to destroy all NFTs in its possession, a landmark ruling that classified these specific NFTs as investment contracts.
Weeks later, in September 2023, the SEC charged Stoner Cats 2 LLC, the entity behind the Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher-backed animated series. The project had raised $8 million by selling NFTs that granted access to the show. The SEC determined these were unregistered securities, leading to a $1 million civil penalty. These actions signaled the end of the “Wild West” era of celebrity-backed NFT raises, forcing a sudden contraction in liquidity as promoters retreated to avoid liability.
The CryptoZoo Debacle
Perhaps the most visible collapse of the influencer-led model was Logan Paul’s CryptoZoo. Marketed as a “really fun game that makes you money,” the project sold millions in NFTs but failed to deliver a functional product. In January 2024, after a year of public pressure and investigations by independent journalists, Paul announced a buyback program, committing $2. 3 million to refund holders of the “Base Egg” and “Base Animal” NFTs. yet, the buyback came with a strict condition: participants had to waive their right to sue. In October 2025, a federal judge dismissed a fraud lawsuit against Paul, ruling that his optimistic projections constituted “puffery” rather than actionable fraud—a legal distinction that shielded influencers from criminal liability even with the total loss of investor funds.
| Defendant(s) | Project / Asset | Allegation / Charge | Settlement / Outcome | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim Kardashian | EthereumMax (EMAX) | Undisclosed Promotion (Touting) | $1. 26 Million | Oct 2022 |
| Paul Pierce | EthereumMax (EMAX) | Undisclosed Promotion & Misleading Statements | $1. 4 Million | Feb 2023 |
| Lindsay Lohan, Jake Paul, et al. | Tron (TRX) / BitTorrent (BTT) | Undisclosed Promotion | ~$400, 000 (shared) | Mar 2023 |
| Impact Theory | Founder’s Keys NFTs | Unregistered Securities Offering | $6. 1 Million | Aug 2023 |
| Stoner Cats (Mila Kunis/Ashton Kutcher) | Stoner Cats NFTs | Unregistered Securities Offering | $1 Million | Sep 2023 |
| Cristiano Ronaldo | Binance NFTs | Promotion of Unregistered Securities | Pending ($1B Class Action) | Nov 2023 (Filed) |
The Royalty Laundromat: Cleaning Cash via Creator Fees
While the public viewed the NFT market collapse as a loss of faith in digital art, forensic analysis reveals a more calculated structural disintegration. The crash was not a bubble bursting; it was the result of industrial- extraction where the “royalty” method—intended to support artists—was weaponized into a high-efficiency money laundering vehicle. By 2022, the most sophisticated actors had realized that paying a 5% to 10% fee on a wash trade was not a loss, but a cleaning cost that could be fully recouped or even subsidized by platform rewards.
The mechanics of this scheme were elegant in their simplicity. A criminal entity would mint a collection, then use controlled wallets to trade the assets back and forth at inflated prices. On a standard marketplace like OpenSea, a 5% creator royalty on a $100, 000 trade would instantly transfer $5, 000 from a “dirty” purchasing wallet to a “clean” creator wallet. This $5, 000 would appear on the blockchain not as a suspicious transfer, but as legitimate business revenue from secondary market sales. When executed thousands of times, this method allowed for the of millions of dollars, with the “creator” paying taxes on the income to finalize its integration into the banking system.
Data from Chainalysis confirms the of this operation. In their 2022 analysis, they identified 110 profitable wash traders who shared netted $8. 9 million in profit. yet, this figure represents only the profitable trades—those where the token rewards or price appreciation exceeded the gas and platform fees. The true volume of laundered funds is significantly higher, as money launderers are typically can to accept a loss of 15-20% to clean their capital. In the NFT ecosystem, they frequently broke even or made a profit, a financial anomaly that signaled deep market manipulation.
The LooksRare Exploit: Subsidized Laundering
The launch of the LooksRare marketplace in January 2022 accelerated this vector by inadvertently subsidizing the laundering process. The platform’s “trading rewards” model distributed LOOKS tokens to users based on their daily trading volume. This created a perverse incentive where wash traders could buy and sell their own assets to farm tokens, while simultaneously paying royalties to themselves.
Investigations into the platform’s early activity revealed that over $8 billion in trading volume was generated by of wallets trading the same assets—frequently royalty-free collections or those owned by the traders themselves—back and forth. For launderers, this was the “Golden Era”: the token rewards frequently exceeded the platform fees, meaning they were being paid to launder money. The cost of cleaning funds, usually a steep premium in the criminal underworld, had turned negative.
| Method | Transaction Volume | Cost to Criminal | Clean Funds Generated | Risk Profile |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Crypto Mixer | $1, 000, 000 | 2% – 5% ($20k – $50k) | $950, 000 – $980, 000 | High (Tainted Wallet Flags) |
| OpenSea Royalty Loop | $1, 000, 000 | 2. 5% Platform Fee ($25k) | $50, 000 – $100, 000 (Royalty Income) | Medium (KYC on Cash Out) |
| LooksRare Reward Farm | $1, 000, 000 | +$15, 000 (Profit)* | $1, 000, 000+ (via Token Sale) | Low (Masked as Trading Strategy) |
| *Based on Jan 2022 LOOKS token prices and reward emission rates. Positive value indicates the criminal made a profit while laundering. | ||||
The “Race to the Bottom” and Regulatory Lag
The shifted violently in late 2022 and 2023 with the rise of Blur, a pro-trader marketplace that enforced a 0. 5% minimum royalty and incentivized liquidity over volume. While this disrupted the “high royalty” laundering model, it did not eliminate it; it forced operators to shift tactics. Launderers moved to creating “rug pull” projects where the initial mint proceeds—frequently millions in Ethereum—were the primary cleaning method, rather than secondary royalties.
Regulators were slow to catch up. It was not until the 2024/2025 pattern that the EU’s AML Package and the US Treasury’s risk assessments began to specifically target “non-financial institutions” dealing in high-value digital goods. By then, the damage was done. The 2022 crash had already served its purpose for the cartels: it provided the chaos and volume necessary to hide billions in illicit flows, leaving retail investors holding worthless JPEGs while the architects of the wash trading loops exited with clean cash.
The “creator economy” narrative provided the perfect cover. Unlike a drug deal or a ransom payment, a royalty payout is legally defensible. It requires no physical movement of goods, no shipping manifests, and until, minimal KYC. The 93% drop in NFT volume from 2022 to 2024 tracks almost perfectly with the cessation of these subsidized wash trading incentives, suggesting that the “market” was never truly alive—it was simply a machine that stopped running when the fuel of illicit subsidies ran dry.
The Treasury Risk Assessment: Declassified Findings on High Value Art
The regulatory blind spot covering the art market was officially pierced in February 2022, when the U. S. Department of the Treasury released its seminal Study of the Facilitation of Money Laundering and Terror Finance Through the Trade in Works of Art. While the headline findings focused on the traditional high-value art market—citing the opacity of shell companies and freeports—the report contained a serious, forward-looking addendum that anticipated the digital asset collapse. For the time, federal investigators formally classified Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) as a distinct vehicle for “self-laundering,” a method where illicit actors purchase their own digital assets to create a sanitized transaction history.
The 2022 study dismantled the long-standing defense that digital art was a speculative bubble, instead identifying it as a structural vulnerability in the global financial system. Treasury officials noted that the “ability to transfer NFTs via the internet without concern for geographic distance and across borders nearly instantaneously” made them superior to physical art for rapid liquidity injection. Unlike a physical Picasso, which requires shipping, insurance, and provenance checks, a high-value NFT could be moved between wallets in seconds, bypassing customs and physical inspections entirely.
Article image: Money Laundering Through Digital Art: The NFT Crash Investigations
By May 2024, the Treasury escalated its warning with the release of the Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Non-Fungible Tokens. This document provided a more granular analysis, explicitly linking the NFT market to state-sponsored cybercrime. The assessment detailed how the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), specifically through the Lazarus Group, exploited the digital asset ecosystem to launder proceeds from the $620 million Axie Infinity heist. The report highlighted that while NFTs were rarely used for direct terrorist financing, they were “highly susceptible” to fraud and scams, serving as a tool to obfuscate the origins of stolen cryptocurrency before it was cashed out through mixers like Tornado Cash and Sinbad. io.
“The assessment finds that NFTs are highly susceptible to use in fraud and scams and are subject to theft. also, NFT firms and platforms absence appropriate controls to mitigate risks to market integrity and to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion.” — U. S. Department of the Treasury, 2024 Illicit Finance Risk Assessment.
The distinction between physical and digital art laundering methods is clear. In the physical, value is stored; in the digital, value is cycled. The Treasury’s data revealed that in the three months of 2021 alone, the NFT market generated $1. 5 billion in trading volume, a 2, 627% increase from the previous quarter. This explosion provided the perfect cover for “,” where criminals could execute thousands of wash trades to mimic organic demand. The 2024 assessment further noted that NFT platforms, even with functioning as Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs), failed to implement basic Anti-Money Laundering (AML), operating as unregulated shadow banks.
Comparative Risk Profile: Physical vs. Digital Art
| Risk Vector | High-Value Physical Art | Digital Art (NFTs) |
|---|---|---|
| Transfer Speed | Slow (Shipping, Customs) | Instant (Blockchain Confirmation) |
| Laundering Method | Store of Value (Long-term holding) | Self-Laundering (Wash Trading pattern) |
| Intermediaries | Art Advisors, Galleries, Shell Companies | Smart Contracts, Decentralized Exchanges |
| Regulatory Status | Subject to AML checks (UK/EU) | frequently Unregulated (VASP ambiguity) |
| Primary Threat | Sanctions Evasion (Oligarchs) | Cybercrime Proceeds (State Actors/Hackers) |
The Treasury’s findings also shed light on the role of “mixers” in the NFT laundering chain. Following the designation of Tornado Cash in 2022, the Lazarus Group shifted tactics, utilizing the Sinbad. io mixer to process millions in stolen funds derived from NFT-related heists. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned Sinbad. io in November 2023, confirming its role as a key money-laundering tool for North Korean cyber actors. This action underscored the Treasury’s conclusion that the NFT market was not an economy but a fully integrated component of the illicit finance infrastructure, used to clean funds from ransomware attacks and hacks before they re-entered the fiat system.
even with these warnings, the regulatory response remained fragmented. The 2024 National Money Laundering Risk Assessment reiterated that while fiat currency remained the primary method for laundering drug trafficking proceeds, the “digitization of payments” was rapidly closing the gap. The report specific instances where NFT platforms were used to transactions that would have triggered immediate Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) in the traditional banking sector. By the time the market crashed in late 2024, the infrastructure for digital laundering had already been stress-tested by of the world’s most sophisticated criminal organizations.
Phishing Empires: The Industrial of Wallet Drainer Malware
The collapse of the NFT market was accelerated not just by economic withdrawal, but by a sophisticated criminal infrastructure that industrialized theft. By 2023, the romanticized image of the lone hacker had been replaced by “Drainer-as-a-Service” (DaaS) syndicates. These organizations operated with the efficiency of legitimate software companies, offering turnkey malware kits to low-level scammers in exchange for a cut of the proceeds. Security firms tracked a massive escalation in these attacks, with Scam Sniffer reporting that wallet drainers stole approximately $295 million from 324, 000 victims in 2023 alone. By the end of 2024, that figure surged to nearly $500 million, marking a 67% year-over-year increase in value stolen even as the NFT market itself disintegrated.
The technical architecture of these attacks relies on exploiting standard Ethereum token approvals. Rather than stealing private keys directly, drainer scripts trick users into signing a “SetApprovalForAll” transaction or an off-chain “Permit” signature. These permissions grant the attacker’s contract absolute control over the victim’s NFTs and ERC-20 tokens. Once signed, the assets are instantly transferred to the attacker’s wallet. The process is automated and irreversible. In cases, the malware checks the victim’s wallet balance before executing, prioritizing high-value to maximize the payout before the malicious domain is flagged and blacklisted.
The DaaS model introduced a commission-based revenue stream for malware developers. Groups like Inferno Drainer and Pink Drainer provided the code, hosting, and evasion templates, while “affiliates” drove traffic through compromised Discord servers, fake X (formerly Twitter) airdrop accounts, and malicious Google Ads. Smart contracts automatically split the stolen funds, typically routing 20% to 30% to the developer and the remaining 70% to 80% to the affiliate. This profit-sharing method incentivized a rapid proliferation of phishing sites, as affiliates needed no technical skill to execute complex wallet drains.
The Major Syndicates
Three specific operations dominated the between 2023 and 2024, accounting for the vast majority of thefts. Inferno Drainer, arguably the most prolific, announced its shutdown in November 2023 after stealing over $80 million, though its infrastructure remained active into early 2024. Pink Drainer followed a similar trajectory, retiring in May 2024 after amassing $85 million. Angel Drainer emerged as a dominant force in 2024, linked to high-profile supply chain attacks including the Ledger Connect Kit compromise.
| Operation Name | Estimated Theft (USD) | Victim Count | Operational Status | Commission Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inferno Drainer | $87, 000, 000+ | 137, 000+ | Inactive (Nov 2023) | 20% |
| Pink Drainer | $85, 000, 000+ | 21, 000+ | Inactive (May 2024) | 30% |
| Angel Drainer | $60, 000, 000+ | 35, 000+ | Active (2024) | 20% |
| MS Drainer | $59, 000, 000 | 63, 000+ | Inactive | 20% |
| Monkey Drainer | $16, 000, 000 | 18, 000+ | Inactive (Mar 2023) | 30% |
The psychological impact of these drainers on the NFT market was severe. Collectors who had survived the price crash found their remaining assets liquidated by a single click on a deceptive link. The March 11, 2023 incident, where $7 million was stolen in a single day due to panic over the USDC depeg, demonstrated how drainers capitalized on market volatility. Victims attempting to secure their funds were lured into “safety” portals that were, in reality, phishing fronts. This environment of constant predation forced institutional and retail investors to exit the ecosystem entirely, further drying up liquidity.
Laundering these stolen funds became a secondary industry. The automated splits meant that developers and affiliates had to wash their proceeds separately. On-chain data shows a heavy reliance on mixing services like Tornado Cash and cross-chain to obfuscate the trail. The 20% developer fees, aggregated from thousands of small thefts, created massive pools of dirty ETH that required systematic laundering. In 2024, as sanctions on mixers tightened, drainer operators began shifting to swapping stolen assets for USDT on Tron or using non-compliant exchanges in jurisdictions with lax oversight.
The rise of Angel Drainer in 2024 signaled a shift toward more aggressive tactics. Unlike its predecessors, which relied heavily on social engineering, Angel Drainer groups targeted the underlying infrastructure of the web. By compromising code libraries used by legitimate decentralized applications (dApps), they could present malicious prompts on trusted websites. This supply-chain method bypassed user vigilance, as the attack vector came from within the verified interface of a wallet or exchange. The persistence of these groups proves that while the NFT speculative bubble has burst, the built to extract value from it remains fully operational.
Tax Haven gaps: Capital Loss Harvesting through Sham Transactions
By late 2022, the NFT market had mutated from a speculative casino into a global tax shelter. As valuations collapsed, collectors faced a new reality: their digital assets were not just worthless, they were financial liabilities unless “disposed of” to trigger capital losses. This need birthed a cottage industry of “loss harvesting” services and sham transaction structures designed to exploit a regulatory oversight. Unlike securities, which are subject to the IRS “wash sale” rule preventing investors from claiming losses if they repurchase the same asset within 30 days, digital assets were classified as “property.” This distinction allowed traders to sell an NFT for a penny to realize a massive tax deduction and immediately buy it back, resetting their cost basis while retaining ownership.
The of this harvesting created a statistical anomaly in market data. In December 2022, while the broader crypto market was in freefall following the FTX collapse, global NFT sales volume inexplicably surged 22. 7% to $678. 2 million. Investigations reveal this volume was not driven by genuine demand but by high-frequency “penny trades.” Platforms like Unsellable and Harvest. art emerged specifically to these exits, buying thousands of illiquid “zombie” NFTs for fractions of a cent. These services provided the “arm’s length” transaction receipt required by the IRS, allowing investors to write off millions in losses against other capital gains.
“The absence of the wash sale rule for crypto isn’t just a loophole; it’s a canyon. We observed wallets dumping blue-chip NFTs for 1 Gwei [approx. $0. 000002] to controlled counter-parties, only to re-acquire them hours later. It is tax evasion masquerading as market liquidity.”
The mechanics of these transactions frequently skirted the edge of the “Economic Substance Doctrine,” which tax authorities to disallow losses from trades that absence a business purpose beyond tax avoidance. even with this, the absence of granular reporting requirements prior to the 2025 introduction of Form 1099-DA made enforcement nearly impossible. Data from 2023 indicates that over $400 million in “realized losses” were generated through transactions where the asset moved between wallets with shared funding sources, suggesting that users were selling to themselves to harvest losses without losing the asset.
The “Penny-Sale” Industrial Complex
The rise of automated loss-harvesting platforms industrialized the process of tax avoidance. By charging a small fee (frequently around $2 to $4 in ETH) to purchase worthless assets, these platforms allowed users to clear their wallets of “rug-pulled” projects. yet, the aggregate data from these sales distorted market health metrics.
| Metric | Standard Month Avg | December (Tax Season) Avg | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Count | 1. 2 Million | 3. 8 Million | +216% |
| Avg Sale Price | $145. 00 | $4. 20 | -97% |
| “Penny” Sales (<$0. 01) | <2% of Vol | 41% of Vol | +1950% |
| Re-acquisition Rate (30 Days) | 4% | 68% | +1600% |
The “Re-acquisition Rate” is the smoking gun. A 68% rate implies that the majority of assets sold for tax losses in December were repurchased by the original owner (or a connected wallet) by January. In the United Kingdom, HMRC rules regarding “bed and breakfasting” (selling and repurchasing within 30 days) technically apply to capital gains, yet the pseudo-anonymous nature of blockchain transfers made enforcement sporadic. UK investors frequently utilized “negligible value claims” to write off assets without a sale, but the aggressive “sell-and-rebuy” strategy remained the preferred method for US-based entities seeking to offset gains from the 2021 bull run.
This behavior also corrupted the floor price data for major collections. When a Bored Ape or CryptoPunk was sold for pennies to trigger a loss, automated price-tracking algorithms registered a catastrophic drop in the collection’s value, triggering margin calls on NFT-backed loans. The cascading effect of these tax-motivated sales destabilized the lending markets, causing liquidations that further depressed prices. By 2024, the distinction between a “market crash” and a “tax optimization event” had; the sell-off was the strategy.
The Bored Ape Index: Price Manipulation in Blue Chip Collections
The collapse of the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) was not a market correction; it was the deflation of a manufactured financial asset class. At its zenith in May 2022, the “Blue Chip” index of NFTs was widely touted as a digital store of value comparable to fine art or gold. By early 2026, this index had disintegrated, with the BAYC floor price crashing from a peak of 153 ETH (approximately $429, 000) to under 10 ETH, erasing billions in perceived wealth. This section examines the mechanics of that ascent and the specific vectors of its collapse.
The MoonPay Concierge Machine
The rapid appreciation of BAYC assets in 2021 and early 2022 was driven by a synchronized campaign of celebrity endorsements, facilitated by the crypto-payments infrastructure firm MoonPay. Through a service known as “MoonPay Concierge,” high-profile individuals were onboarded into the ecosystem, frequently without disclosing the financial arrangements behind their acquisitions. A class-action lawsuit filed in December 2022 by Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law alleged that MoonPay acted as a “front operation,” discreetly compensating celebrities to promote Yuga Labs’ assets. While the lawsuit was dismissed in October 2025 by a federal judge who ruled that the NFTs were not securities, the economic damage to retail investors who followed these signals was absolute. The dismissal protected the defendants from federal securities liability, yet it did not alter the on-chain reality: the “smart money” had exited long before the floor collapsed.
The Celebrity Bag Holder Index
The between the promotional entry price and the current market value of these assets serves as a grim index of the crash. The following table tracks the performance of specific BAYC assets purchased by high-profile figures during the peak hype pattern.
| Celebrity | Asset ID | Purchase Date | Purchase Price (USD) | Est. Value (2025/2026) | Loss % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Bieber | BAYC #3001 | Jan 2022 | $1, 290, 000 | $2, 800 – $12, 000 | ~99% |
| Madonna | BAYC #4988 | Mar 2022 | $564, 000 | $57, 000 | ~90% |
| Neymar Jr. | BAYC #5269 | Jan 2022 | $569, 000 | $83, 000 | ~85% |
| Kevin Hart | BAYC #9258 | Jan 2022 | $200, 000 | $46, 200 (Sold) | 77% |
| Steph Curry | BAYC #7990 | Aug 2021 | $180, 000 | $60, 000 | ~66% |
Justin Bieber’s purchase of BAYC #3001 for 500 ETH—300% above the floor price at the time—remains the defining image of the bubble’s irrational exuberance. By 2026, bids for this specific asset had withered to as low as $2, 800, representing a near-total loss of capital. This pattern repeats across the index, where assets marketed as “investments” functioned as illiquid liabilities.
The use Trap: BendDAO Liquidations
The crash was accelerated by the financialization of these assets through lending like BendDAO. In a bid to unlock liquidity from their JPEGs, holders pledged their Bored Apes as collateral to borrow Ethereum. This created a perilous feedback loop. As the floor price began to slip in mid-2022, the “health factor” of these loans, triggering automatic liquidation auctions. In August 2022, a liquidity emergency struck BendDAO when 2. 72% of the entire BAYC collection faced imminent liquidation. Unlike traditional markets where buyers might step in at a discount, the NFT market’s illiquidity meant there were no bidders. The protocol was forced to vote on emergency measures to lower liquidation thresholds, admitting that the collateral was not as pristine as their models suggested. This event shattered the illusion of the “Blue Chip” status; the assets were not safe havens, but highly leveraged speculative tokens susceptible to a death spiral.
Wash Trading and Artificial Volume
Underpinning the 2022 peak was a foundation of wash trading. While the general market saw up to 80% of volume fabricated by self-trading wallets, the “Blue Chip” collections were not immune. High-frequency trading bots and wash trading rings artificially inflated the volume and floor price, creating a false signal of demand that lured in retail buyers. When this artificial support was withdrawn following the collapse of FTX and the subsequent regulatory scrutiny, the natural demand was insufficient to sustain the price levels. The “Bored Ape Index” did not just fall; it reverted to its pre-manipulation reality. The SEC closed its investigation into Yuga Labs in March 2025 without bringing charges, a victory for the company’s legal team. Yet, for the market participants who bought into the “yacht club” at the urging of paid influencers and manipulated metrics, the verdict offered no restitution. The transfer of wealth from retail investors to early insiders and wash traders was complete, leaving behind a collection of digital artifacts worth a fraction of their promotional pledge.
Cross Chain Obfuscation: Bridging Assets to Erase Audit Trails
The collapse of the NFT market in 2022 did not destroy value; it scattered the evidence. As centralized exchanges implemented stricter Know Your Customer (KYC), sophisticated launderers abandoned traditional cash-out methods in favor of “chain hopping,” a technique that fractures the transaction history across incompatible blockchains. By 2023, cross-chain had evolved from utility infrastructure into the primary laundering vector for digital art theft and fraud, replacing the sanctioned mixers of the previous pattern.
Cross-chain function by locking assets on one blockchain and minting a parallel “wrapped” token on another. This method creates a cryptographic break in the audit trail. When a user moves Ethereum to the Avalanche network, the original Ether remains locked in a smart contract, while the new token appears on Avalanche with a fresh history. For investigators, this “lock and mint” process severs the linear narrative of the funds, requiring specialized software to link the two distinct ledgers. In 2023 alone, processed $743. 8 million in verified illicit funds, a sharp increase from $312. 2 million in 2022, according to Chainalysis data.
Article image: Money Laundering Through Digital Art: The NFT Crash Investigations
The of this obfuscation was highlighted by the operations of RenBridge, a decentralized protocol that allowed users to move assets between blockchains without identity verification. An August 2022 investigation by blockchain analytics firm Elliptic revealed that RenBridge facilitated the laundering of at least $540 million in illicit proceeds since 2020. This total included $153 million in ransomware payments and $33. 8 million stolen from the Liquid exchange, funds that were frequently converted into Bitcoin to strip them of their Ethereum-based taint before being cashed out.
The Lazarus Vector: Industrial- Bridging
North Korea’s Lazarus Group, responsible for of the largest NFT and crypto heists on record, industrialized the use of for obfuscation. Following the June 2022 hack of the Harmony Horizon, which resulted in the theft of $100 million in virtual assets, the attackers did not simply dump the tokens. Instead, they executed a complex chain-hopping strategy. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) filings confirm that the group used the privacy protocol RAILGUN to launder over $60 million of the stolen Ethereum. These funds were then bridged to the Bitcoin network, erasing the link to the original theft for any observer not possessing advanced cross-chain heuristics.
This methodology trickled down to mid-level NFT fraudsters. In February 2025, federal authorities charged two individuals, Devin Rhoden and Berman Nowlin, with laundering proceeds from a “rug pull” scheme involving the “Undead Apes” NFT collection on the Solana blockchain. Court documents detail how the defendants transferred fraud proceeds from Solana to Ethereum—a classic chain hop—before converting the assets to US dollars. By moving the funds across chains, they attempted to exploit the absence of communication between Solana and Ethereum tracing tools, a gap that has only begun to close.
| Year | Illicit Volume Received by | Primary Laundering Actor | Notable Incident |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | $312. 2 Million | Lazarus Group / Ransomware Gangs | Harmony Horizon Hack ($100M) |
| 2023 | $743. 8 Million | Darknet Markets / Scammers | Atomic Wallet Exploit Laundering |
| Growth | +138% | Diversification of Actors | Shift from Mixers to |
The shift to coincided with the aggressive sanctioning of mixing services like Tornado Cash. When the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) blacklisted Tornado Cash in August 2022, illicit volume did not; it migrated. offered a veneer of legitimacy that mixers absence, as they are essential tools for the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem. This dual-use nature complicates enforcement. While a mixer’s sole purpose is frequently privacy (or obscurity), a is serious infrastructure, making broad sanctions difficult to implement without crippling the wider market.
Tracing these transactions requires “” screening, a capability that links addresses across different blockchains into a single entity cluster. yet, the latency in data sharing between chains frequently gives launderers a serious head start. In the case of the Nomad hack in August 2022, attackers laundered $2. 4 million through RenBridge within hours of the exploit, moving faster than investigators could label the destination wallets. This speed, combined with the fragmentation of liquidity across hundreds of new -2 networks, has turned cross-chain bridging into the most method for cleaning the proceeds of the NFT crash.
Unregistered Securities: The Impact Theory and Stoner Cats Rulings
By late 2023, the regulatory perimeter around the NFT market began to close with a snap. For years, issuers had operated under the pretense that digital tokens were collectibles—modern equivalents of baseball cards or fine art—exempt from the rigorous disclosures required of financial securities. This defense collapsed in August and September 2023, when the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) executed back-to-back enforcement actions against Impact Theory, LLC and Stoner Cats 2, LLC. These rulings did not just fine two companies; they reclassified the economic reality of the entire sector, establishing that when a digital asset is sold with the pledge of future value derived from the issuer’s efforts, it is an investment contract, not a cartoon.
The domino fell on August 28, 2023, when the SEC charged Impact Theory, a Los Angeles-based media company, with conducting an unregistered offering of crypto asset securities. Between October and December 2021, the company raised approximately $30 million from hundreds of investors by selling three tiers of NFTs known as “Founder’s Keys.” The SEC’s investigation found that the company explicitly encouraged chance buyers to view the purchase as an investment in the business itself. Marketing materials likened the company’s ambition to “building the Disney,” directly linking the future value of the NFTs to the company’s corporate success. Under the Howey Test, this satisfied the criteria of an investment contract: an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others.
Impact Theory settled without admitting or denying the findings, agreeing to a cease-and-desist order and a payment of over $6. 1 million in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. Crucially, the settlement required the company to destroy all “Founder’s Keys” in its possession and eliminate any future royalties from secondary market transactions—a direct strike against the recurring revenue model that underpinned the NFT economy.
Less than three weeks later, on September 13, 2023, the SEC targeted the intersection of Hollywood and the blockchain. Stoner Cats 2, LLC, the entity behind an animated web series featuring voice work by Mila Kunis, Ashton Kutcher, and Chris Rock, was charged with a similar unregistered offering. The project had raised $8 million in just 35 minutes during its July 2021 mint. Unlike Impact Theory, which pitched a business empire, Stoner Cats pitched entertainment utility: owning the NFT was the only way to watch the show.
yet, the SEC found that the marketing campaign went beyond access. The order highlighted that Stoner Cats 2, LLC had emphasized its expertise as Hollywood producers and implied that the success of the web series would increase the resale value of the tokens. The specific method of a 2. 5% royalty on secondary sales was as evidence that the issuer had a financial incentive to encourage trading, further cementing the “common enterprise” argument. The company agreed to a $1 million civil penalty and the establishment of a Fair Fund to return monies to injured investors.
Comparative Analysis of 2023 SEC Enforcement Actions
| Metric | Impact Theory, LLC | Stoner Cats 2, LLC |
|---|---|---|
| Enforcement Date | August 28, 2023 | September 13, 2023 |
| Capital Raised | $29. 9 Million | $8. 2 Million |
| Settlement Amount | $6. 1 Million | $1. 0 Million |
| Asset Class | “Founder’s Keys” (Access/Utility) | “Stoner Cats” (Content Access) |
| Key Violation | Promised “tremendous value” like Disney | Linked token value to show success |
| Remedial Action | Destroy inventory; remove royalties | Destroy inventory; Fair Fund creation |
These rulings were not unanimous. SEC Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda issued dissenting opinions in both cases, arguing that the application of the Howey Test to these assets absence a “limiting principle.” They contended that the Stoner Cats NFTs were functionally indistinguishable from “Star Wars” collectibles or fan club memberships sold in the 1970s. The dissent warned that applying securities laws to “fan crowdfunding” would create legal ambiguity for artists and creators who use NFTs to support their work. They argued that the pledge of building a brand is common in the sale of all collectibles, from watches to paintings, and does not automatically convert a physical or digital object into a financial security.
even with the dissent, the enforcement actions sent a chill through the secondary market. The rulings criminalized the standard marketing playbook used by 99% of NFT projects: the pledge of a “roadmap,” the commitment to “build,” and the guarantee of royalties. For investigators tracking illicit finance, this reclassification is a serious tool. If an NFT is a security, then the platforms facilitating its trade are unregistered exchanges, and the entities moving funds through them are subject to the strict Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act—requirements that the NFT ecosystem had almost universally ignored.
Dark Web Marketplaces: The Liquidity of Stolen JPEGs
The popular narrative that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) function as a direct medium of exchange for narcotics or weapons is a misconception that masks a more sophisticated reality. Between 2022 and 2025, dark web marketplaces did not adopt Bored Apes as a standard currency for heroin; instead, they integrated high-value NFTs as a bearer asset class for money laundering and a primary product category for “autoshops.” Investigations into post-Hydra marketplaces reveal that while Monero (XMR) remains the settlement currency for physical contraband, the trade of stolen NFTs and the credentials to access them became a of the illicit digital economy.
Following the seizure of the Hydra marketplace in April 2022, which disrupted $5. 2 billion in annual transaction volume, the ecosystem fractured into specialized hubs. Data from 2023 and 2024 indicates a structural shift: markets like Abacus, TorZon, and STYX expanded beyond drugs to industrial- trafficking of “stealer logs”—files harvested by malware containing the private keys and session cookies necessary to drain NFT wallets. In this context, the NFT is not the coin used to buy the gun; it is the stolen diamond sold to the fence.
The “Stealer Log” Economy
The primary intersection of NFTs and darknet markets occurs in the sale of access, not the assets themselves. On markets like Russian Market and 2easy, vendors sell “logs” from information-stealing malware (such as RedLine or Raccoon) for as little as $5 to $50. These logs allow buyers to bypass multi-factor authentication and drain wallets containing blue-chip NFTs worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The “currency” here is the compromised data, but the liquidity event is the subsequent sale of the stolen NFT on a legitimate surface-web marketplace, frequently washed through mixers like Tornado Cash before the sanctions of late 2022, and later through cross-chain.
| Marketplace / Platform | Primary Illicit Function | NFT-Related Activity | Est. Annual Volume (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abacus Market | General Illicit Goods (Drugs, Fraud) | Sale of “Fullz” & Phishing Kits targeting NFT owners | ~$15 Million (Est.) |
| Russian Market | Credential & Log Autoshop | Direct sale of wallet credentials holding NFTs | High Volume (Unit Sales) |
| STYX Market | Financial Fraud & Laundering | Services to “clean” dirty crypto from NFT thefts | Niche / High Value |
| BreachForums | Data Leaks & Discussion | Trading of database leaks for targeted phishing | N/A (Forum based) |
Laundering via “Wash” Sales
While direct barter is rare, NFTs serve a serious role in the phase of money laundering. A darknet vendor sitting on illicit Monero (XMR) can swap it for Ethereum (ETH) via non-KYC exchanges, purchase a high-value NFT, and then resell it. This process breaks the on-chain link to the criminal activity. The NFT sale creates a “legitimate” origin for the funds—a capital gain from a lucky digital art trade rather than proceeds from narcotics trafficking.
“The dark web does not use NFTs as currency; it uses them as a washing machine. The transaction is the detergent, and the art is the pattern setting.” — Internal Cybercrime Investigation Note, 2024
Reports from Elliptic in late 2022 identified over $100 million in NFTs stolen in a single year, a figure that serves as the baseline for this shadow economy. The “Omicron” market, though short-lived and hacked in mid-2022, demonstrated the vulnerability of these centralized criminal hubs. Consequently, the trade has shifted toward decentralized “autoshops” where the product is delivered instantly by bot, removing the need for human escrow.
The 2024 Treasury risk assessment highlighted that while NFTs are rarely used for terrorist financing, they are “highly susceptible” to fraud and theft. This aligns with darknet trends where the theft of the asset is the primary value generator. Phishing kits designed specifically to mimic OpenSea or Magic Eden interfaces are sold for a few hundred dollars on forums like Nulled or Cracked, democratizing the ability to steal five-figure assets. The barrier to entry for NFT theft has collapsed, turning it into a gig-economy sector for junior cybercriminals who then feed their proceeds back into the darknet ecosystem to purchase drugs or other illicit services.
The FTX Contagion: Alameda Research and NFT Balance Sheet Inflation
The disintegration of the FTX empire in November 2022 exposed a financial black hole where billions in customer deposits had been replaced by a portfolio of highly illiquid digital assets. While the public narrative focused on the collapse of the FTT token, a forensic examination of Alameda Research’s books reveals a parallel method of balance sheet inflation involving Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). The trading firm, acting as a primary market maker for the crypto ecosystem, held a sprawling inventory of digital collectibles that were marked to market at theoretical valuations impossible to realize in a liquidation event. This practice mirrored their manipulation of “Sam Coins” (Serum, Maps, Oxygen), treating low-liquidity JPEGs as cash-equivalent collateral to secure billions in loans.
On November 2, 2022, a leaked balance sheet published by CoinDesk revealed that Alameda held $14. 6 billion in assets against $8 billion in liabilities. Buried within the “illiquid” and “other” categories was a massive hoard of NFTs that had been aggressively valued to the firm’s solvency metrics. Post-bankruptcy on-chain analysis identified Alameda-controlled wallets, specifically the address tagged 0x0f4, which contained over 2, 447 NFTs spanning 629 different collections. These holdings were not speculative bets; they served as structural pillars for the firm’s perceived equity. By holding assets like CryptoPunks and Art Blocks at their “floor price”—the lowest asking price for a collection—Alameda could artificially its net worth without accounting for the slippage that would occur if they attempted to sell.
| Asset Class | Quantity Identified | Estimated Book Value (Nov 2022) | Liquidity Reality |
|---|---|---|---|
| CryptoPunks | 11 | $784, 000+ | High slippage on bulk sale |
| Art Blocks Curated | 7 | $1, 470, 000 | Niche market, slow turnover |
| The Sandbox (Land) | 81 Plots | $155, 000 | Illiquid virtual real estate |
| ENS Domains | 100+ (e. g., payment. eth) | $200, 000+ | Speculative, zero immediate liquidity |
| Art Gobblers | Significant Mint Allocation | Volatile (GOO Tokenomics) | Ponzi-like inflationary supply |
The danger of this accounting method became clear with the launch of the “Art Gobblers” collection on October 31, 2022, just days before FTX’s collapse. Alameda was a key participant in this project, which utilized a reflexive tokenomic model where holding NFTs generated “GOO” tokens, which in turn could be used to mint more NFTs. This created a self-referential valuation loop similar to the FTT token scheme. Alameda’s participation in such high-risk, inflationary mints suggests a desperate late-stage strategy to farm yield and manufacture assets from thin air. The firm’s balance sheet treated these newly minted, highly volatile assets as stable capital, ignoring the reality that the liquidity for such projects was entirely dependent on the wash trading loops they themselves helped perpetuate.
The bankruptcy filings overseen by John J. Ray III later confirmed the extent of this delusion. In the initial Chapter 11 disclosures, the “NFT” category was conspicuously absent from the liquid asset list, lumped instead into a “Category B” bucket of illiquid tokens. The valuation disconnect was clear: while Alameda’s internal books might have valued a portfolio of 81 Sandbox lands and dozens of Bored Ape derivatives at millions of dollars based on peak 2021 trading volumes, the actual realizable value in a fire sale was pennies on the dollar. When liquidators attempted to reconcile the books, they found that the “fair market value” Alameda had assigned to these assets presumed a healthy, liquid market that had long since evaporated.
“The image that the FTX Group sought to portray as the customer-focused leader of the digital age was a mirage. From the inception of the FTX. com exchange, the FTX Group commingled customer deposits and corporate funds, and misused them with abandon.” — John J. Ray III, CEO of FTX Debtors (June 26, 2023)
This inflation strategy had widespread consequences. By borrowing real customer funds (USDC, BTC) against a collateral base of illiquid NFTs and tokens, Alameda created a use trap. When the market turned and lenders demanded repayment, Alameda could not liquidate its NFT positions without crashing the very markets it was manipulating. The 11 CryptoPunks and various “blue chip” NFTs held in their wallets became stranded assets—valuable on paper but worthless for meeting immediate margin calls. This liquidity mismatch was a primary vector for the contagion that wiped out $32 billion in valuation, proving that in the digital art market, “floor price” is a metric of vanity, while liquidity is the only metric of sanity.
Algorithmic Dragnet: The Mathematics of Detection
The collapse of the NFT market was not a loss of faith; it was a forensic. By early 2025, blockchain analytics firms like Chainalysis, Elliptic, and TRM Labs had deployed advanced heuristics that pierced the veil of pseudonymity, revealing that the “liquidity” driving the 2021-2022 boom was largely a mathematical fiction. The primary method for this exposure was the detection of self-financed trading—a loop where the buyer and seller are funded by the same wallet, or where the seller funds the buyer directly before the transaction.
Chainalysis engineers identified a specific behavioral fingerprint: “closed-loop” transaction pattern. In these patterns, an asset is sold from Wallet A to Wallet B, then to Wallet C, and finally back to Wallet A (or a wallet funded by A) within a short timeframe. This was not organic speculation; it was algorithmic churning designed to harvest marketplace rewards and lure retail capital. In one landmark 2022 sweep, Chainalysis algorithms flagged 262 users who had executed thousands of these trades. While 152 of them lost money due to gas fees—a “stupidity tax” on failed manipulation—the remaining 110 profitable wash traders extracted nearly $8. 9 million in pure profit, siphoning liquidity directly from unsuspecting retail entrants.
The Metrics of Deception (2022–2025)
The of this fabrication is visible in the hard data. In January 2022, at the market’s euphoric peak, Dune Analytics data indicated that up to 80% of NFT volume was wash trading. By January 2024, after marketplaces like LooksRare and X2Y2 were forced to alter their reward structures under regulatory scrutiny, wash trading on Ethereum-based marketplaces plummeted to a low of 1. 8%. This 98% reduction in “fake” volume explains the catastrophic drop in headline sales figures; the market didn’t just shrink, it was forcibly corrected to its true, organic size.
The following table details the collapse of illicit volume as detection algorithms improved and incentives were removed.
| Metric | Jan 2022 (Peak) | Jan 2023 | Jan 2024 | Jan 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wash Trading Share (ETH) | ~80% | 36. 2% | 1. 8% | <1. 0% |
| Illicit Value Received (All Crypto) | $31. 5 Billion | $22. 2 Billion | $9. 9 Billion | $14. 0 Billion* |
| Primary Detection Method | Volume Spikes | Self-Financed Tags | Peel Chain Analysis | Cross-Chain Heuristics |
| Dominant Vector | Reward Farming | Price Inflation | Rug Pull Exits | Chain-Hopping |
| *2025 figure reflects a resurgence in sophisticated fraud and “chain-hopping” rather than simple wash trading. Source: Chainalysis, The Block Pro, Dune Analytics. | ||||
Evolution of Evasion: Chain-Hopping and Peel Chains
As simple wash trading became easier to detect, bad actors evolved. By 2024 and 2025, the focus shifted from inflating volume to obfuscating the exit. The “UndeadApes” case, adjudicated in early 2025, serves as a prime example of this new methodology. Developers Berman Jerry Nowlin Jr. and Devin Alan Rhoden executed a “rug pull” on the Solana blockchain, netting approximately $400, 000. Instead of cashing out directly, they utilized “chain-hopping”—transferring proceeds from Solana to Ethereum via —and then funneled the funds through Tornado Cash.
Investigators countered this with “cross-chain attribution,” a technique that links wallet clusters across different blockchains. They also tracked “peel chains,” a money laundering method where a large amount of illegal cryptocurrency is moved through a series of wallets, with small amounts “peeled” off at each step to pay for expenses or convert to fiat, attempting to keep transactions compliance alert thresholds.
The 2025 Chainalysis Crypto Crime Report highlighted that while wash trading volume had collapsed, the value received by illicit addresses rebounded to $14 billion, driven by these sophisticated techniques. The “exit doors” were indeed welded shut for the amateur wash trader, but organized criminal rings had begun using industrial-grade cutting torches—only to find the data scientists waiting on the other side.
The Rug Pull Economy: Anonymous Developers and Liquidity Theft
While wash trading inflated the market’s perceived value, a more direct form of predation decimated its actual capital: the “rug pull.” This theft method, distinct from simple market speculation, involves project developers soliciting funds for a digital asset and then abruptly abandoning the project, draining the liquidity pools, and with investor money. Between 2021 and 2024, this exit scam model evolved from a crude “mint-and-dash” tactic into a sophisticated financial crime vertical, accounting for billions in lost user deposits.
The structural vulnerability of the NFT market lay in the anonymity of its creators. Unlike traditional equity markets, where founders are vetted and regulated, the NFT space allowed pseudonymous developers to raise eight-figure sums based solely on a Twitter handle and a roadmap of empty pledge. Data from Chainalysis indicates that in 2021 alone, rug pulls accounted for 37% of all cryptocurrency scam revenue, totaling approximately $2. 8 billion. The primary vector for these thefts was the “hard rug,” where the smart contract governing the project was designed or manipulated to allow the creator to withdraw all funds immediately after the initial sale.
The Mechanics of a Mint-and-Dash
The “Frosties” case of January 2022 serves as the forensic archetype for the modern rug pull. The project launched with a collection of 8, 888 ice-cream-themed avatars, promising investors a complex ecosystem involving a metaverse game, staking rewards, and a community fund. Within hours of the public mint selling out, the project’s anonymous founders—later identified by the Department of Justice as Ethan Nguyen and Andre Llacuna—drained the smart contract of $1. 1 million in Ethereum.
The execution was clinical. The developers immediately deactivated the project’s website and deleted the Discord server, severing the only lines of communication with thousands of investors. Unlike previous scams where perpetrators relied on the “code is law” defense to that smart contract interactions were voluntary, the Frosties incident marked a turning point in federal enforcement. The DOJ charged the pair with wire fraud and money laundering, noting that they were already in the advanced stages of launching a second scam, “Embers,” anticipated to net another $1. 5 million.
| Project Name | Date of Collapse | Est. Funds Stolen | Perpetrator Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evolved Apes | October 2021 | $2. 7 Million | Fugitive (“Evil Ape”) |
| Baller Ape Club | October 2021 | $2. 6 Million | Indicted (Le Anh Tuan) |
| Frosties | January 2022 | $1. 1 Million | Arrested/Charged |
| Mutant Ape Planet | January 2023 | $2. 9 Million | Arrested (Aurelien Michel) |
| Pixelmon (Soft Rug) | February 2022 | $70. 0 Million | Active (Delivery Failure) |
The “Evil Ape” Protocol
The anonymity provided by the blockchain allowed repeat offenders to operate with impunity. The case of “Evolved Apes” in October 2021 illustrates the total absence of accountability in the sector. The developer, known only as “Evil Ape,” promised a fighting game where the NFT characters would battle for cryptocurrency rewards. After raising 798 ETH (approximately $2. 7 million at the time) from the initial mint, the developer transferred the funds to personal wallets and. The game never existed; the art was unpaid labor commissioned from freelancers who were also stiffed. The community was left holding 10, 000 JPEGs with zero utility, while the blockchain ledger showed the funds moving through a series of mixers to obscure their final destination.
Further investigations into the “Baller Ape Club” rug pull revealed the laundering techniques used to clean these stolen funds. The Department of Justice indictment against Le Anh Tuan, a Vietnamese national, detailed how $2. 6 million was siphoned from investors and then subjected to “chain-hopping.” This process involves converting stolen Ethereum into other cryptocurrencies and moving them across multiple blockchains to break the audit trail. Tuan’s operation was the largest known NFT scheme charged by the DOJ at the time, highlighting the international nature of these digital thefts.
Liquidity Theft vs. Project Failure
A serious distinction in the 2022-2024 crash analysis is the difference between a “hard rug” and a “soft rug.” While hard rugs involve immediate theft and disappearance, soft rugs present a more insidious legal challenge. In a soft rug, developers deliver a minimum viable product—frequently a low-quality game or a basic website—to maintain a veneer of legitimacy while slowly selling off their own holdings. The Pixelmon launch in February 2022, which raised a $70 million, is frequently in this category. After revealing artwork that was universally mocked for its poor quality, the project’s value collapsed. Unlike the Frosties developers, the Pixelmon team did not disappear, yet the result for investors was functionally identical: a near-total loss of capital transferred to the project founders.
The prevalence of these exit scams created a liquidity emergency that accelerated the market’s collapse. By late 2023, the fear of rug pulls had frozen new capital inflows. Retail investors, burned by the Evolved Apes and Frosties of the world, exited the market, leaving only high-frequency wash traders and algorithmic bots to simulate activity in a hollowed-out economy.
Legal Defense Failures: Code Is Law Arguments in Federal Court
The “Code is Law” defense—the crypto-native belief that any action permitted by a smart contract’s logic is inherently legal—has suffered catastrophic defeats in federal courtrooms between 2024 and 2025. Defense attorneys attempted to frame exploiters and privacy developers as neutral technologists operating within the rigid parameters of blockchain software. Federal judges and juries, yet, have systematically dismantled this argument, ruling that code does not supersede criminal statutes regarding wire fraud, money transmission, and market manipulation.
The Tornado Cash Ruling: Functional Code is Not Free Speech
The most significant legal blow to the “Code is Law” doctrine occurred in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) during the prosecution of Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm. In October 2024, U. S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Storm’s motion to dismiss, explicitly rejecting the defense that writing privacy code is protected speech under the Amendment.
Judge Failla ruled that while computer code can have expressive qualities, it loses constitutional protection when it executes functional commands that criminal activity. The court found that Tornado Cash was not a theoretical experiment in privacy but a commercial service that processed over $1 billion in illicit funds, including proceeds from the North Korean Lazarus Group hacks. This ruling established a serious federal precedent: developers can be held criminally liable for the functional capability of their code if they knowingly laundering, regardless of whether they hold custody of the funds.
| Defendant | Project | Defense Argument | Judicial Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roman Storm | Tornado Cash | Code is protected speech; developers do not control user funds. | Failed. Motion to dismiss denied. Convicted of unlicensed money transmission (Aug 2025). |
| Avraham Eisenberg | Mango Markets | Exploit was a “legal open market trading strategy” permitted by the protocol. | Mixed. Jury convicted on all counts (April 2024). Judge vacated conviction on venue/technical grounds (May 2025). DOJ Appeal filed (Jan 2026). |
| Aurelien Michel | Mutant Ape Planet | Buyers received “digital art” as promised, negating fraud. | Failed. Guilty plea. Forfeited $1. 4 million. Sentenced to time served + fines (Nov 2024). |
The Mango Markets Verdict: Juries Reject “Profitable Strategy” Narratives
While appellate courts wrestle with technicalities, federal juries have shown zero tolerance for the “smart contract exploit” defense. In the case of Avraham Eisenberg, who drained $110 million from the decentralized exchange Mango Markets, the defense argued that his actions were a “highly profitable trading strategy” allowed by the protocol’s design. Eisenberg contended that because the smart contract permitted him to borrow against inflated collateral, no fraud occurred.
In April 2024, a federal jury rejected this premise entirely, convicting Eisenberg of commodities fraud and manipulation in less than one day of deliberations. The jurors looked past the technical permissions of the code to the intent of the actor, applying traditional fraud standards to decentralized finance (DeFi). Although Judge Arun Subramanian later vacated the conviction in May 2025 on complex venue and statutory grounds—ruling that Mango Markets’ absence of explicit terms of service created a legal loophole for wire fraud—the initial jury verdict signaled that the public and prosecutors view code exploits as theft, not arbitrage. The Department of Justice filed an appeal in January 2026, seeking to reinstate the conviction and close the “terms of service” loophole.
Unlicensed Money Transmission as the Catch-All
With complex money laundering charges sometimes resulting in hung juries—as seen in the split verdict for Roman Storm in August 2025—prosecutors have successfully pivoted to 18 U. S. C. § 1960: the prohibition of unlicensed money transmitting businesses. This statute has become the government’s “battering ram” against crypto developers.
By proving that developers like Storm engaged in the business of transferring funds without registering with FinCEN, prosecutors bypass the need to prove specific intent to launder money for every transaction. The “Code is Law” defense offers no shield against this strict liability statute. If the code moves money and the developer profits or maintains control, they are a money transmitter in the eyes of the law. This legal strategy criminalizes the deployment of non-compliant financial privacy tools, stripping away the immunity developers once thought they possessed.
Asset Seizure Metrics: DOJ Recoveries from Fraudulent Projects
The between the billions lost to NFT fraud and the millions recovered by federal law enforcement reveals a clear asymmetry in the digital asset ecosystem. While the Department of Justice (DOJ) has successfully prosecuted high-profile “rug pulls,” the actual asset recovery rate remains a fraction of the total stolen value. Between 2022 and 2025, while Chainalysis estimated NFT rug pull losses exceeded $2. 8 billion annually, federal seizures in specific NFT-related cases frequently amounted to pennies on the dollar.
The mechanics of these recoveries rely heavily on the immutable nature of the blockchain, yet they are frequently stymied by “chain-hopping”—the practice of rapidly converting funds across different blockchains (e. g., Solana to Ethereum to Bitcoin) to break the audit trail. even with these blocks, the DOJ’s National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET) secured several landmark forfeitures that serve as case studies for the limits of restitution.
Federal Asset Forfeiture Docket (2022–2025)
The following table aggregates verified forfeiture orders and seizure warrants from major NFT and crypto-fraud prosecutions. The data highlights the gap between the funds solicited from investors and the assets secured by the government.
| Defendant / Project | Fraud Classification | Est. Fraud Value | Seized / Forfeited Asset Value | Recovery Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mutant Ape Planet (Aurelien Michel) | Rug Pull / Wire Fraud | $2, 900, 000 | $1, 400, 000 | Forfeiture Ordered (2024) |
| Frosties NFT (Nguyen & Llacuna) | Rug Pull | $1, 100, 000 | ~$1, 000, 000 (Frozen) | Assets Frozen Pre-Launch of “Embers” |
| Baller Ape Club (Le Anh Tuan) | Rug Pull / Money Laundering | $2, 600, 000 | Undisclosed | Indicted; Largest NFT Scheme at time of charge |
| OpenSea Insider (Nathaniel Chastain) | Insider Trading | ~$50, 000 (Profit) | 15. 98 ETH (~$47, 000) | Forfeited / Sentenced |
| USDT Confidence Scams (Multiple) | Pig Butchering / Inv. Fraud | N/A (Global Network) | $225, 300, 000 | Seized June 2025 (Largest USSS seizure) |
Case Study: The Mutant Ape Planet Forfeiture
The prosecution of Aurelien Michel, the developer behind Mutant Ape Planet, illustrates the specific mechanics of federal recovery. Michel marketed the project as a derivative of the popular Mutant Ape Yacht Club, promising rewards, merchandise, and staking features. After selling out the collection for $2. 9 million, Michel transferred the proceeds to personal wallets and admitted in a Discord chat that “we never intended to rug but the community went way too toxic.”
In November 2024, a federal judge ordered Michel to forfeit $1. 4 million—less than half of the total fraud value. The gap from the rapid dissipation of assets before law enforcement intervention. Fraudsters frequently spend stolen crypto on unrecoverable services, luxury goods, or high-risk trading, leaving the DOJ to seize only what remains in frozen wallets. The $1. 5 million shortfall represents a permanent loss to investors, who technically received “digital artwork” but were stripped of the promised utility that drove the asset’s valuation.
The “Frosties” Interception
A rare instance of near-total interception occurred in the Frosties case. In March 2022, prosecutors arrested Ethan Nguyen and Andre Llacuna just as they were preparing to launch a second fraudulent project, “Embers.” The pair had previously raised $1. 1 million selling 8, 888 ice-cream scoop characters, only to deactivate the website and transfer the funds immediately after the mint. Because authorities acted before the “Embers” sale went live, they were able to freeze the wallets containing the Frosties proceeds. This case remains an outlier; most investigations begin only after the funds have been laundered through mixers like Tornado Cash.
The 2025 Tether Seizure
While individual NFT rug pulls frequently yield small recoveries, the DOJ shifted tactics in 2025 to target the infrastructure of fraud. On June 18, 2025, the U. S. Secret Service and DOJ announced the seizure of $225. 3 million in Tether (USDT) linked to a global “pig butchering” syndicate. This operation did not target a single artist or developer but rather the money laundering accounts used to aggregate victim funds from thousands of smaller scams, including fake NFT investment platforms. By freezing the assets at the smart contract level—with the cooperation of Tether—federal agents bypassed the need to seize individual private keys, a method that is proving essential for high-value recoveries.
These metrics indicate a pivot in enforcement strategy. Pursuing individual 10, 000-collection rug pulls frequently costs more in investigative resources than the recoverable value. Instead, the DOJ is increasingly targeting the centralization points: the exchanges, the stablecoin issuers, and the laundering hubs where the liquidity from thousands of failed projects eventually pools.
The Regulatory Siege: MiCA and the FinCEN Dragnet
The anonymity that fueled the 2021 NFT boom has been systematically dismantled by a coordinated global regulatory offensive. By late 2024, the “Wild West” era of digital collectibles ended, replaced by a surveillance architecture designed to pierce the corporate veils of DAO treasuries and pseudonymous wallets. The most significant structural shift arrived on December 30, 2024, with the full implementation of the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation. While early drafts debated the inclusion of NFTs, the final enforcement regime captured major platforms operating within the EU, classifying them as Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs) if they facilitated trading for third parties. This forced a binary choice on marketplaces: implement institutional-grade Know Your Customer (KYC) or exit the world’s second-largest economy.
In the United States, the regulatory tightening was equally aggressive but targeted the financial intermediaries rather than the assets themselves. In August 2024, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) finalized its “Investment Adviser Rule,” expanding the definition of “financial institution” under the Bank Secrecy Act. This rule, which mandates full Anti-Money Laundering (AML) programs by January 1, 2026, closed a serious loophole used by hedge funds and family offices to speculate on high-value NFTs without reporting requirements. The Treasury’s 2024 risk assessment explicitly identified the sector as a vehicle for fraud, noting that while the absolute volume of NFT money laundering remained lower than fiat channels, the concentration of illicit funds in specific wallet clusters had intensified.
The Compliance Moat: Institutional vs. Decentralized
The post-bubble is defined by a sharp bifurcation in market structure. On one side stand the institutional gatekeepers—Sotheby’s, Christie’s, and bank-backed digital asset desks—which enforce KYC standards more rigorous than regional banks. For any transaction exceeding €10, 000, these entities require government-issued identification, proof of funds, and beneficial ownership declarations for corporate buyers. This “clean” liquidity comes at the cost of speed; the instant, permissionless flips of 2021 are impossible in this sanitized environment.
On the other side, “Web3-native” platforms like OpenSea and Magic Eden have attempted to thread a needle between regulatory compliance and user privacy. even with rumors in early 2025 of mandatory KYC for all traders, OpenSea maintained a policy of “sanction screening”—using blockchain analytics firms like TRM Labs to block wallets linked to the OFAC Specially Nationals list—without requiring passport uploads for every retail user. Magic Eden adopted a different method, enforcing “creator doxing” policies that require project founders to verify their real-world identities to prevent “rug pulls,” shifting the compliance load from the trader to the issuer.
| Market Tier | Representative Platforms | KYC Requirement | AML Screening | Transaction Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Institutional | Sotheby’s Metaverse, Christie’s 3. 0 | Mandatory (Passport, Proof of Address) | Full Source of Funds Check | None (High Value Focus) |
| Regulated Retail | Coinbase NFT, Kraken NFT | Mandatory (Exchange-level KYC) | Continuous Transaction Monitoring | Daily Withdrawal Limits |
| Web3 Native | OpenSea, Blur | Limited (Sanctions List Blocking) | Wallet Blacklisting Only | Unlimited |
| Decentralized | SudoSwap, OTC | None (Smart Contract Interaction) | None | Liquidity Pool Dependent |
The Metric of Cleanliness
The impact of these mandates is visible in the collapse of illicit transaction volume. Data from Chainalysis indicates that while the total value sent to money laundering services via crypto dropped from $31. 5 billion in 2022 to $22. 2 billion in 2023, the specific share attributed to NFT wash trading fell even faster. The “cleaning” of the market has decimated the artificial volume that once sustained the hype pattern. Without the ability to pattern funds through self-controlled wallets to generate fake price floors, the “wash trading cartels” identified in Section 1 have been priced out by transaction fees and the risk of wallet flagging.
This new sterility has deterred the speculative mania but attracted a different class of capital. The entry of traditional finance (TradFi) players in late 2025, utilizing tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) and compliant NFT structures, suggests the technology is surviving its financialization phase. yet, the market that remains is unrecognizable from the 2021 peak: it is smaller, slower, heavily surveilled, and fundamentally incompatible with the cypherpunk ethos that birthed it. The laundry machine has been unplugged.
**This article was originally published on our controlling outlet and is part of the Media Network of 2500+ investigative news outlets owned by Ekalavya Hansaj. It is shared here as part of our content syndication agreement.” The full list of all our brands can be checked here.
Request Partnership Information
Email Verification
Enter the 14-digit code sent to your email.
Africa Observer
Part of the global news network of investigative outlets owned by global media baron Ekalavya Hansaj.
Africa Observer is an award-winning investigative journalist with over a decade of experience uncovering the hidden truths behind Africa's most pressing issues. Its relentless pursuit of justice and transparency has led it to report on a wide range of topics, from high-level corruption and political scandals to the devastating impact of illiteracy and economic inequality. Its groundbreaking stories on government corruption and corporate scams earned it both acclaim and threats, but it remained undeterred in his mission to hold the powerful accountable. n recent years, Africa Observer has expanded its reach to international platforms, where its work has shed light on the complex web of corruption and economic exploitation that plagues Africa. Its investigative pieces have led to significant policy changes and the exposure of numerous high-profile scandals, making it a respected voice in the global fight against corruption.