Connect with us

Crypto

Russian National Charged With Laundering $530 Million Through Cryptocurrency Companies

Published

on

Russian National Charged With Laundering 0 Million Through Cryptocurrency Companies

Iurii Gugnin, a 38-year-old Russian national residing in New York, has been charged with 22 criminal counts by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly laundering over $530 million through his cryptocurrency companies, Evita Investments and Evita Pay. The charges include wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, and violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Gugnin is accused of creating a financial pipeline using the stablecoin Tether USDt (USDT) to support sanctioned Russian entities and bypass US sanctions and export controls. He allegedly deceived banks, falsified compliance documents, and facilitated access to sensitive US technologies. Gugnin’s actions highlight the misuse of digital assets for illicit finance and the growing challenges of regulating cryptocurrency markets.

Gugnin presented Evita as a legitimate cryptocurrency payment service but allegedly used it to secretly transfer illegal funds for Russian clients. By posing as a compliant financial technology company, Evita moved money through US banks and crypto exchanges while hiding the funds’ real sources. As president, treasurer, and compliance officer, Gugnin had complete control over these companies’ operations, finances, and regulatory reporting, enabling him to manage transactions, misrepresent the companies’ activities, and ignore Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules. Authorities claim Evita’s systems were used to help sanctioned Russian entities obtain US technology and channel funds through stablecoins like USDT.

Gugnin is accused of moving $530 million through the US financial system while concealing the illicit origins of the funds. He laundered about $530 million through US banks and cryptocurrency exchanges, primarily using USDT, a stablecoin tied to the US dollar and known for its fast, low-volatility cross-border transactions. The operation involved receiving cryptocurrency from foreign clients, many connected to sanctioned Russian banks, including Sberbank, VTB, Sovcombank, and Tinkoff. These digital funds were channeled through cryptocurrency wallets controlled by Evita and then converted into US dollars or other traditional currencies via US bank accounts. This helped Gugnin to obscure their origins and assist Russian clients in evading international sanctions.

Gugnin used deceptive methods to hide the illegal nature of these cross-border transactions. He altered invoices digitally to remove the names and addresses of Russian clients and provided false compliance documents to banks and cryptocurrency exchanges. These documents wrongly claimed that Evita had no ties to sanctioned entities and had complied with AML and Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations. Despite claiming compliance, Evita allegedly operated without an actual AML compliance and failed to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) as required by US regulations. This allowed Gugnin to mask the source and purpose of the funds, enabling high-risk transactions that may have supported Russia’s access to restricted US technology.

Advertisement

Gugnin, through his cryptocurrency companies, allegedly created a financial network to support Russian entities banned by US sanctions. Prosecutors allege he handled more than $500 million in transactions for Russian clients connected to sanctioned banks, including PJSC Sberbank, PJSC Sovcombank, PJSC VTB Bank, and JSC Tinkoff Bank. While living in the US, Gugnin held personal accounts with sanctioned banks JSC Alfa-Bank and PJSC Sberbank. He also enabled payments to acquire US export-controlled technology, such as sensitive servers, and laundered money to obtain components for Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear agency. Actions of Gugnin and Evita provided Russian clients access to restricted components. Gugnin hid his activities by altering invoices to conceal Russian ties and falsifying compliance documents.

Gugnin and his companies are accused of deliberately violating US sanctions and export controls and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). He allegedly deceived US banks and cryptocurrency exchanges by falsely stating that Evita had no connections with sanctioned Russian entities, while actively processing transactions for clients linked to blacklisted banks. To hide his activities, Gugnin secured a Florida money transmitter license by providing false details about Evita’s operations. This allowed him to use crypto exchange services under the pretense of compliance. Gugnin transferred over $500 million, often in USDT, into the US financial system through this scheme. Gugnin’s actions violated federal laws and threatened national security by enabling sanctioned entities to evade restrictions and illegally obtain sensitive US technologies.

The US DOJ alleges that Gugnin and his crypto companies failed to follow key AML rules required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Although Gugnin presented Evita as a legitimate money services business, he allegedly did not establish an effective AML program and failed to submit suspicious activity reports (SARs) to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which are crucial for detecting and preventing illegal financial activities. Moreover, Gugnin misled banks and cryptocurrency exchanges by falsely claiming that Evita complied with strict AML and KYC standards, when these measures were either inadequate or missing. This deception allowed over $500 million to flow through the US financial system without proper regulatory oversight.

Federal investigators found strong evidence that Gugnin knew his actions were illegal. They found that Gugnin had allegedly searched terms like “how to know if there is an investigation against you,” “money laundering penalties US,” and “am I being investigated?” This showed he was aware of potential legal risks. Gugnin had also searched for “Evita Investments Inc. criminal records” and “Iurii Gugnin criminal records,” indicating he was worried about the consequences of his actions. Gugnin had also visited websites explaining signs of being under criminal investigation and ways to detect law enforcement attention. These online activities suggest he was conscious of his guilt and actively tried to avoid detection. This digital evidence supports the prosecution’s claim that Gugnin intentionally broke US laws while attempting to conceal his money laundering activities from authorities.

Gugnin faces a 22-count federal indictment for offenses related to laundering $530 million through his cryptocurrency companies. He has been charged with wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the US, violations of the IEEPA, and running an unlicensed money transmitting business. Additional charges stem from Gugnin’s failure to establish an effective AML program and not filing suspicious activity reports (SARs). If found guilty, Gugnin could face up to 30 years in prison for each bank fraud charge and up to 20 years for wire fraud and sanctions violations. Gugnin was arrested and arraigned in New York, and he is currently detained while awaiting trial, as authorities consider him a flight risk.

Advertisement

The case against Gugnin reveals increasing concerns about cryptocurrencies, especially stablecoins like Tether, being used to evade cryptocurrency regulations and US sanctions. As part of a broader effort to combat illegal crypto activities, the indictment shows how sanctioned entities, particularly those connected to Russia, use digital currencies to bypass restrictions and access global financial systems. Although stablecoins provide transparent transaction records, their speed and worldwide reach make them appealing for money laundering. The Gugnin case may lead to stricter regulations for crypto exchanges, payment processors, and money transmitters, with more vigorous enforcement of AML and sanctions compliance rules. Gugnin’s case also highlights the national security risks, as his actions enabled Russian clients to obtain restricted US technology. It may result in regulators imposing more stringent reporting measures on crypto firms to prevent foreign adversaries from exploiting digital finance to harm US interests.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Crypto

Better Cryptocurrency to Buy With $5,000 and Hold Forever: XRP vs. Ethereum | The Motley Fool

Published

on

Better Cryptocurrency to Buy With ,000 and Hold Forever: XRP vs. Ethereum | The Motley Fool

Both Ethereum (ETH 6.03%) and XRP (XRP 3.76%) are tried-and-tested blockchains which have survived (and sometimes thrived) for years on end. That means they’re both sturdy enough to be candidates for a big investment, like $5,000, and for holding over the very long term, or even forever.

So which of these two leading coins is the better option for a forever hold?

Image source: Getty Images.

Ethereum has more ways to grow

Forever is a long time, especially for an investment in an emerging sector like crypto. Therefore, an asset’s optionality regarding where it can derive growth is a key factor, as today’s growth drivers might peter out and new ones are likely to emerge.

On that front, Ethereum has plenty of options. It already hosts a large decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem worth more than $53 billion today, powered by a massive stablecoin base of $159 billion. That existing base of capital is a strategic asset because it gives developers and financial institutions a reason to build new products right where liquidity already lives. It also gives investors exposure to many possible growth lanes at once, from the onboarding of tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) to the development of new settlement rails for payments between AI agents.

Advertisement
Ethereum Stock Quote

Today’s Change

(-6.03%) $-123.58

Current Price

$1924.97

Another advantage is that Ethereum has a track record of consistently shipping large protocol upgrades. The Pectra upgrade, for example, landed on the mainnet in May 2025, followed by the Fusaka upgrade in December. Two similarly large feature packages are expected for 2026, and they should help to build the chain’s ability to scale up without spiking transaction costs.

If you plan to hold an asset indefinitely, this network’s culture of iterative improvement reduces the risk that its technical capabilities will become irrelevant as emerging opportunities for growth arise. Its habit of attracting and retaining substantial capital also helps prevent that outcome.

XRP has to keep winning specific fights over time

XRP is not a bad crypto asset by any means, but its long-term burden is its far narrower positioning than Ethereum.

Ripple, the coin’s issuer, built the XRP Ledger (XRPL) ecosystem as a toolkit of financial technologies to support specific workflows in institutional finance, especially cross-border payments and money transfers, and, more recently, the management of tokenized asset capital. The coin’s value is thus derived from the utility of its ledger.

Advertisement

That focus could pay off if the financial companies the chain targets like what it’s offering, but it also concentrates risk. Financial institutions move cautiously, and winning them over is a slow, grinding process of catering to their needs and building strong relationships. Their technology adoption process can stall for years, even when the product works, and decision-makers broadly want to adopt the new tech.

To Ripple’s credit, the XRP Ledger includes plenty of features that match institutional requirements and seek to minimize their potential pain points. The network’s authorized trust lines, for instance, let tokenized asset issuers whitelist who can hold their issued tokens, which is a feature that supports regulatory constraints around who can legally custody an asset. Similarly, the ledger supports freezing tokens when suspicious activity appears, which is a control that traditional finance teams tend to expect in regulated asset workflows.

XRP Stock Quote

Today’s Change

(-3.76%) $-0.05

Current Price

$1.35

Advertisement

But holding a coin forever is unforgiving of sustained competitive pressure, which XRP doubtlessly faces. Its competitors include fintech companies and other cryptocurrencies, not to mention the internal tech development capabilities of many of its target users in big banks. So it’ll need to continuously one up the other players in its space if it’s going to grow over the long term, and it’s hard to believe that it’ll win every round that counts.

The verdict

The decision here is about resilience and resources.

Advertisement

Ethereum’s “grizzled veteran” reputation today stems from surviving numerous shifts in user demand patterns while maintaining a large on-chain capital pool and growing it all the while. Its success or failure in any given crypto market segment is not guaranteed, nor was it in the past, but its constant evolution has ensured that failures are not fatal, and also that missed opportunities aren’t very damaging overall.

XRP, on the other hand, is only just starting to scale up its on-chain capital base; it has only $418 million in stablecoins. Furthermore, while it has succeeded in attracting some financial institutions to its chain, the truth is that its growth trajectory has not yet been seriously tested, and is still finding an appropriate product-market fit. Its real competitive challenges have only just begun.

So if you want a coin to buy with $5,000 and hold forever, pick the asset that can win without needing to be perfect: Ethereum. XRP is still a decent long-term hold, assuming it’s part of a diversified crypto portfolio, but it’s riskier.

Continue Reading

Crypto

Debate Brews Over Crypto Kiosks As Lawmakers Consider Potential Ban

Published

on

Debate Brews Over Crypto Kiosks As Lawmakers Consider Potential Ban

Lawmakers Consider Crypto ATM Ban as Scam Losses Rise — Including in Central Minnesota

Minnesota lawmakers are considering banning cryptocurrency kiosks as scam losses continue to rise across the state—including in Central Minnesota.

There are currently about 350 crypto kiosks operating statewide, located in places like gas stations, convenience stores, and grocery stores. These machines allow users to deposit cash and convert it into cryptocurrency, which can then be sent electronically.

Law enforcement officials say scammers are increasingly directing victims to use these kiosks because once the money is sent, it is extremely difficult—if not impossible—to recover.

Police say scams often begin with a phone call, text, or online message. In many cases, scammers pose as government officials, tech support workers, or even romantic partners. Victims are eventually told to withdraw cash and deposit it into a crypto kiosk to “protect” their money or resolve a supposed emergency.

Central Minnesota has seen similar cases. Because St. Cloud serves as a regional hub for shopping and services, crypto kiosks are available locally, giving scammers access points to target area residents.

Advertisement

Some say kiosks also serve legitimate users

Despite the concerns, crypto kiosks do offer legitimate benefits. They allow people to purchase cryptocurrency quickly using cash, without needing a traditional bank account, credit card, or online exchange. Supporters say this can make cryptocurrency more accessible, especially for people who prefer cash transactions or have limited access to banking services.

Crypto kiosks can also be used to send money quickly, including international transfers, without relying on traditional wire services. Some users view them as a convenient way to invest in cryptocurrency or move money electronically without going through a bank.

Companies that operate the machines say the vast majority of transactions are legitimate and that kiosks include warnings about scams. They argue the focus should be on stopping scammers, not banning the machines entirely.

Lawmakers weighing next steps

Supporters of the proposed ban say removing the kiosks could help prevent fraud and protect vulnerable residents, particularly older adults. Law enforcement officials told lawmakers that crypto kiosk scams have resulted in significant financial losses statewide.

Minnesota passed regulations in 2024 requiring some safeguards, including limits on deposits for new users and refund requirements in certain fraud cases. But officials say scammers have continued to adapt.

Advertisement

The bill remains under consideration at the Capitol.

In the meantime, authorities urge Central Minnesota residents to be cautious. Officials emphasize that legitimate government agencies, law enforcement, and businesses will never ask someone to deposit cash into a cryptocurrency kiosk.

As cryptocurrency becomes more common, lawmakers are now weighing whether the risks to consumers outweigh the convenience and accessibility these machines provide.

10 (More) Hilariously Bad Google Reviews of Central MN Landmarks

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto

Cryptocurrency Investment Fraud: Bizman loses Rs 2.6 cr to crypto, investment fraud | Hyderabad News – The Times of India

Published

on

Cryptocurrency Investment Fraud: Bizman loses Rs 2.6 cr to crypto, investment fraud | Hyderabad News – The Times of India

Hyderabad: A 69-year-old businessman from Somajiguda lost 2.65 crore allegedly in a cryptocurrency and stock investment fraud. Based on his complaint, Hyderabad Cyber Crime police have registered a case.The complainant was first contacted by a fraudster posing as Ramya Krishnan on Aug 30, 2025 through Facebook. She persuaded the victim to invest in a cryptocurrency and stock trading platform, Polyus Finance PFP Gold, hosted at the domain pfpgoldfx.vip, promising high returns to finance his proposed resort and apparel ventures.Fraudsters provided the victim a contact number for daily communication and sent screenshots showing notional profits credited in his wallet in USDT cryptocurrency. To build trust, the fraudster even allowed the victim a token withdrawal of 4,300 on Sept 12, 2025.Encouraged, the victim transferred over 2.65 crore in 10 transactions between Sept 10 and Dec 39, 2025 to various current accounts provided by the accused.When he attempted to withdraw his ‘earnings’, the accused demanded an additional 15% conversion commission. After he refused, the website became inaccessible and calls to the fraudsters went unanswered.Realising that he was duped, the victim filed an online report on the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP) before approaching the Cyber Crime police on Feb 25.Based on his complaint, a case was registered under Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act and Sections 111(2)(b) (Organised crime), 318(4) (Cheating), 319(2) (Cheating by personation), 336(3) (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 338 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.) and 340(2) (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on Wednesday. Police were analysing financial transactions to identify and arrest the accused.

Continue Reading

Trending