US government controlled wallets transferred roughly $75 million in Bitcoin linked to the Potapenko and Turogin (HashFlare) case.
US government controlled wallets transferred roughly $75 million in Bitcoin linked to the Potapenko and Turogin (HashFlare) case.
Earlier today, blockchain tracking platform Arkham reported that authorities moved $75 million worth of Bitcoin linked to the Potapenko and Turogin case into a new wallet. The transaction involved two separate transfers of $1.7 million followed by $73 million completed within three minutes.
What drew attention was that several wallet addresses tied to the $14 billion Bitcoin seizure had appeared in a cybersecurity report two years ago, warning that their private keys were vulnerable.
At the time, the report by Milky Sad identified the addresses as part of a larger network potentially exposed to brute-force attacks. The revelation that these same wallets are now under US government control has fueled speculation that federal agencies may have exploited those weaknesses.
Blockchain investigator ZachXBT suggested that the seized Bitcoin might not solely belong to criminal organizations, as previously claimed. He traced links between the Cambodian crime network accused of operating pig butchering scams and a defunct mining pool hacked in 2020. Those same wallets, inactive for years, suddenly transferred funds in coordination with government addresses raising questions about how the access was obtained.
The transfer also renewed discussions about the United States’ growing Bitcoin holdings. The government currently holds billions in digital assets seized from various cases, often auctioning or returning them to rightful owners. However, analysts warn that if these recent assets were obtained through hacks or technical exploits, it could signal a strategic pivot.
If the government intends to establish a “Strategic Crypto Reserve,” such unconventional methods could accelerate accumulation without market purchases. Besides, such actions might blur the line between lawful seizure and direct intervention, creating ethical and regulatory concerns.
