In a striking escalation of cyber and financial tensions, China Claims US Stole $13 has formally accused United States of carrying out a $13 billion bitcoin hack, heightening concerns about state-backed digital-asset operations and cross-border legal enforcement. According to China’s cybersecurity authority, the US government seized approximately 127,000 bitcoins (BTC) — initially stolen from a Chinese mining pool in 2020 — via what Beijing calls a “state-level hacking operation.”
The allegations have sparked a new chapter in the uneasy relationship between major powers over cryptocurrency regulation, sovereign rights in cyberspace, and the broader role of digital assets in global geopolitics. China Claims US Stole $13
In this article, we explore what the claims involve, dissect the timeline of events, consider the legal and crypto-market implications, examine the broader geopolitical context, and assess what it could mean for digital-asset security, regulation, and market sentiment. We’ll also reflect on what this development signals for future state-driven crypto operations and investor risk. The key phrase “$13 billion bitcoin hack” and the related themes of bitcoin theft, state-backed hacking, crypto regulation, and US-China dispute will anchor our discussion throughout.
China Claims US Stole $13 What China Is Alleging
The Core Accusation
According to China Claims US Stole $13 cybersecurity watchdog National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center (CVERC), the US government effectively orchestrated the seizure of roughly 127,000 bitcoins—valued at around $13 billion at today’s market rate.Beijing claims that these bitcoins were originally stolen in 2020 from the Chinese mining pool LuBian mining pool, and remained dormant for years before being transferred to wallets linked to US authorities.
China describes the incident not simply as a criminal seizure but as a “state-level hack” and a form of geopolitical digital asset appropriation, asserting that Washington either facilitated or directly executed the hacking and subsequent transfer of stolen funds.
The Alleged Timeline and Crypto Forensics
The alleged sequence begins in December 2020 when the LuBian mining pool suffered a large hack, draining roughly 127,000 BTC from its hot wallets. At the time, the value was far lower—estimates suggest around $3.5 billion—but the current valuation gives rise to the $13 billion figure.
China’s report claims the stolen coins sat untouched for nearly four years, an unusual pattern for ordinary cyber-crime. In mid-2024, the coins were moved to new wallets which blockchain analysts flagged as belonging to US law-enforcement agencies. The CVERC argues that the slow movement and large scale point to a state-level operation rather than a typical hacker exfiltration.
On the US side, United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in late 2025 announced the seizure of 127,000 BTC in connection with fraud charges against Cambodian magnate Chen Zhi (of Prince Group), saying the action was legal enforcement rather than an act of hacking.
Thus, a clash of narratives has emerged: China’s version frames the event as US-led hacking stealing from Chinese infrastructure; the US version presents it as legitimate criminal forfeiture.
China Claims US Stole $13 Why It Matters – Crypto, Legal and Geopolitical Impacts
Implications for the Bitcoin Ecosystem
The claim of a $13 billion bitcoin hack has significant implications for the broader crypto market and the status of … bitcoin as a sovereign-sensitive asset. The locked-up 127,000 BTC constitutes around 0.65 % of the total bitcoin supply. If held out of circulation, this reduces available supply and can have positive pressure on price; if released suddenly, it could trigger outsized volatility. Analysts are now viewing bitcoin through a dual lens: not just as an investment but as a geopolitical asset.
Moreover, the accusations raise investor concerns about the security of digital-asset infrastructure, cross-border regulatory risk, and the possibility of sovereign actors treating crypto markets as theatres of power. The notion of a state-backed digital heist adds an entirely new dimension to how crypto is perceived.
Legal and Regulatory Ramifications
From a legal standpoint, the dispute underscores unresolved questions about jurisdiction, ownership of stolen digital assets, and the ability of one sovereign state to seize or appropriate assets tied to another. The US maintains the funds were lawfully forfeited in connection with fraud and money-laundering charges, but China argues the coins belonged to Chinese infrastructure victims and the seizure breaches its national interest.
This contested case may push regulators around the world to clarify frameworks governing cross-border crypto seizures, state involvement, and asset recovery. The spectre of digital-asset diplomacy and crypto-sanctions is emerging, and this incident could become a reference point in international finance law.
Geopolitical Fallout
Beyond finance and regulation, the political fallout is considerable. China’s public accusation frames the US as not only a geopolitical adversary in trade and tech but now a malicious actor in crypto-cyber space. The statement may intensify China Claims US Stole $13 tensions in cybersecurity, trade, and tech supply-chains. For its part, the US must decide how to respond publicly: acknowledging the seizure might be seen as tacit admission of Chinese claims; denying it leaves open a persistent diplomatic grievance.
The incident also signals to other nations that digital-asset flows and cryptocurrency infrastructure may become front-line arenas in broader power competition.
China Claims US Stole $13 Dissecting the Narratives – Who Says What?
China’s Position
China’s CVERC alleges that the US engineers the seizure as part of a state-driven operation targeting Chinese mining infrastructure. According to China’s account, the hack originated in 2020, remained dormant for years, and only in recent months did the funds move into wallets controlled by US authorities. Chinese media describe the event as “thieves robbing thieves” and accuse the US of “state-level theft under the guise of justice.
Beijing asserts the assets were stolen from Chinese entities and that the US action violates Chinese sovereignty and digital-asset rights. These claims are intended not only to shame the US but to also fortify China’s argument for stricter crypto-sovereignty control and national cybersecurity posture.
The U.S. Position
The US version hinges on the DOJ’s announcement of forfeiture of 127,000 BTC in connection with Chen Zhi’s criminal case. The DOJ claims the seizure was legal, tied to criminal proceeds, and duly executed.
Washington has not substantiated China’s claim of hacking; instead it emphasizes law-enforcement action. The US narrative frames the move as targeting fraud and money-laundering, rather than engaging in inter-state theft. Yet critics may question whether legal-wraps mask deeper geopolitical motivations.
The clash of narratives leaves the public domain without mutually accepted facts, a situation rife for diplomatic escalation.
What This Means for Investors and Crypto Markets
Market Sentiment and Price Effects
With 127,000 BTC effectively in dispute, investors are tracking not only the dollar value (≈US$13 billion) but also the effect on supply dynamics and market psychology. The report that roughly 0.65 % of all bitcoins are entangled in a geopolitical dispute has unsettled some market participants.
In the immediate wake of the accusations, bitcoin price briefly wobbled, reflecting increased “fear, uncertainty and doubt” (FUD). Some analysts argue this event magnifies bitcoin’s role as digital gold in an era of sovereign digital asset contention. Others warn that if states increasingly involve themselves in crypto operations, regulatory clampdowns or asset seizures could become normalization rather than exception.
Risk Management and Due Diligence
For crypto investors and institutions, this saga reinforces the need for robust risk management. Key reminders include: the jurisdictional risk of blockchain assets, the traceability of funds (on-chain forensics is advancing), and the political risk of assets becoming caught in state-motive seizures.
Entities holding large crypto positions should review counter-party risk, ensure wallet custody is segregated, and monitor legal developments around crypto seizures. The case may also prompt institutional holders to seek clearer governance around seized-asset exposures.
Regulatory Ripple Effects
Regulators globally will observe whether this China Claims US Stole $13 dispute drives the adoption of new frameworks for crypto asset recovery, cross-border coordination, and sanctions enforcement. If states begin to treat cryptocurrencies as sovereign-sensitive assets, we may see stronger regulatory regimes, enhanced surveillance of large transactions, and stricter custody rules.
For example, financial institutions might face higher obligations to flag transactions linked to seized or disputed wallets, and countries may coordinate on frozen-asset protocols. This could raise compliance costs for crypto firms and heighten barriers to entry for international operations.
Bigger Picture – Crypto, Sovereignty and Cyber Conflict
The Strategic Value of Bitcoin
What once may have been regarded principally as an investment vehicle is increasingly becoming a strategic tool in state-level contests. The notion that bitcoins worth billions can be seized and entangled in diplomatic disputes elevates their status beyond speculative tokens. In that sense, this alleged hack of $13 billion in bitcoin marks a turning point where cryptocurrencies enter the realm of geopolitical instruments.
If national governments treat bitcoin as part of their strategic financial arsenals — whether as seized assets, national reserves or instruments of power — the rules of engagement for crypto will change dramatically.
Cybersecurity and State-Backed Operations
This incident also underscores how cyber-hacking, cryptocurrency theft, and state interests are increasingly intertwined. China’s framing of the event as “state-level hacking” signals a paradigm in which large-scale cryptocurrency expropriations may be treated as functions of statecraft. The boundary between crime, espionage, and national action becomes blurred.
Investors, companies and governments will need to factor in that large digital-asset thefts may not always be the work of lone hackers but may be tied to nation-state motives, rendering conventional responses (exchange closures, law-enforcement pursuit) inadequate or mis-targeted.
The Implications for Blockchain Transparency
One of cryptocurrency’s core appeals has been blockchain transparency: the ability to trace transactions in real-time. Yet in this case, the traceability of funds became part of the dispute: China alleges that the slow transfer and dormant wallet behaviour hint at state involvement. The transparency of blockchain thus becomes a double-edged sword — enabling analysis, but also exposing state actors who may wish to hide behind legal cover.
Blockchain forensic firms are growing in influence and may play a role in future state-asset-debt disputes. The transparency lens may force states to rethink how they approach cryptocurrency operations, custody, and theft prevention.
Challenges and Open Questions
China Claims US Stole $13 What Remains Unclear?
Despite the seriousness of the claims, many details remain murky. China has presented limited public forensic evidence to demonstrate that the US directly hacked the mining pool in 2020. Meanwhile, the US has not publicly detailed the chain of custody of the seized bitcoins beyond the fraud narrative. Both sides claim legitimacy, but independent confirmation is scant.
Crucial questions include: Who originally controlled the hacked coins? What exactly was the role of the mining pool and its infrastructure? Were the coins moving entirely through illicit channels, or did legitimate mining-pool operations lose funds? Did the US government execute a hacking operation or rely solely on legal-forfeiture? Until clearer facts emerge, the dispute remains partly in the realm of interpretation.
Enforcement and Recovery Prospects
For the seized bitcoins to be returned (if China Claims US Stole $13 succeeds) or redirected (if the US retains them), legal mechanisms must be defined. International law governing digital-asset seizures is still nascent. Will China file a diplomatic or legal challenge? Will the US be pressured to open its forfeiture docket or provide transparency?
Additionally, if the funds are released or re-circulated into the market, the supply and price implications could be significant. Conversely, if they remain locked, that may tighten supply and benefit holders of bitcoin — albeit in an environment of heightened risk.
Long-Term Risks for Crypto Governance
This event raises macro-level concerns for crypto governance. If states increasingly treat cryptocurrency as strategic risk, questions arise: Will there be greater fragmentation of global crypto networks? Might states restrict access to mining or wallets within their jurisdictions? Could we see the formation of national crypto reserves or state-controlled digital-asset sequestration mechanisms?
For the rules-based global order of crypto — where open networks and decentralization dominate — these developments represent a profound potential shift. The community may need to adapt to a world where sovereign interests overshadow pure decentralised ethos.
Conclusion
The dramatic claim by China that the US carried out a $13 billion bitcoin hack marks a critical inflection point in cryptocurrency’s evolution from speculative asset to geopolitical vector. On one level, this is a dispute over the theft and seizure of roughly 127,000 BTC. On another, it signals a shift in how national governments regard digital assets, how cyber-operations intersect with finance, and how global power dynamics play out in the blockchain era.
For investors, regulators, and policymakers, the message is clear: digital assets no longer exist in a vacuum of finance alone — they are embedded in geopolitics, cyber warfare, state sovereignty, and international law. The supply, security and regulatory statutes of bitcoin are being recast in this grander frame.
The full ramifications remain uncertain. Will China force the issue diplomatically? Will the US release more details? How will crypto markets react if the seized bitcoins are moved or unlocked? What new protocols will regulators adopt? These questions loom. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the episode will influence how governments, institutions and investors view and engage with cryptocurrency moving forward.
Seemore : Prediction Protocol Myriad Expands to BNB Chain with Asian-Focused Localization
