UK Crypto Platform Collapses—Customers Left Holding Empty Bags as Withdrawals Vanish
Another day, another crypto firm goes dark—this time with investors screaming about locked funds and phantom returns. The UK-based operation folded faster than a bad poker hand, leaving users scrambling for answers.
Withdrawal freeze: Customers report blocked access to funds for weeks before the shutdown. Classic exit strategy—or just another case of reckless mismanagement? Regulators are already circling like vultures.
Bonus jab: Nothing builds trust in decentralized finance like watching your assets get centralized into someone else’s offshore account. Maybe they’ll accept IOUs paid in ’exposure’?
Claimed to operate a cryptoasset mining business
Company did not have a legitimate UK address
Complaints made as far away as New Zealand
A UK cryptoasset business has been shut down after people from multiple countries did not receive the financial returns promised
— Insolvency Service (@insolvencygovuk) April 30, 2025
UK Court Decision Shuts Down BTCMining After Global Fraud Allegations
A hearing at the High Court in Manchester on 28 April 2025 led to the company’s closure. David Usher, chief investigator for the Insolvency Service, pointed to the global nature of the fraud.
“The fact that BTCMining Limited was attracting customers globally makes our intervention particularly important,” Usher said. “We acted on the complaints before their reach could have affected countless more individuals. It’s vital that the public, both here in the UK and abroad, are protected from companies acting in this way.”
Efforts to Contact BTCMining’s Director Fail, Raising Concerns Over Wider Impact
Investigators were unable to contact the company’s director, Stibich Martins Yhaicha Luzia. He had been the sole director since the company’s incorporation in Jan. 2024. Attempts to reach him through known email addresses and telephone numbers were unsuccessful. Additionally, the company’s websites became inactive or provided no new contact details.
The director’s contact address, listed with Companies House, was a residential property. The occupants were unaware of the business and had not given permission for their address to be used.
Although six complaints have been formally lodged with Action Fraud, authorities believe the actual number of victims could be much higher. The complaints revealed that customers collectively lost more than $18,000. However, this figure may only represent a fraction of the total financial impact.
Investigators are concerned that more individuals may have been affected. These potential victims have yet to come forward.
