Zimbabwean Victim’s $550,000 Crypto Recovery Fight Intensifies Against Scammers

Another day, another nine-figure crypto scam—except this time, the victim isn't backing down.

The Recovery Grind

Forget passive complaints. This Zimbabwean investor is actively mobilizing legal and digital forensics teams to claw back what was taken. The playbook? Tracing blockchain footprints, engaging international authorities, and turning the pseudonymous nature of crypto against the thieves themselves.

The $550,000 Reality Check

That sum isn't just a number—it's a life savings, a business fund, or a family's future, vaporized by a slick website and empty promises. It highlights the brutal asymmetry of crypto investing: your keys, your coins, and your colossal responsibility. Traditional finance might be slow, but at least the FSA doesn't vanish into a Telegram channel after robbing you.

A Warning Shot to Bad Actors

This aggressive pushback signals a shift. Victims are moving from grief to grit, leveraging the very transparency of public ledgers to hunt their predators. It's a messy, expensive, and uncertain battle—but one that could set a powerful precedent for restitution in a Wild West ecosystem.

So, while the scammers count their ill-gotten gains, one determined holder is counting the days until justice—or at least their money—arrives. Sometimes, the most bullish move isn't buying the dip; it's fighting back.

Zimbabwean eye doctor contests the court’s verdict in his case

According to reports, the court, which was presided over by regional magistrate Marehwanazvo Gofa, acquitted the suspects based on a technicality. The magistrate mentioned that there was no evidence that digital assets constituted legal tender in Zimbabwe and, as such, there could be no basis for a fraud conviction. However, the Zimbabwean national has issued an update through his lawyer, Admire Rubaya.

In his statement, the Zimbabwean international mentioned that the magistrate fundamentally erred in law and misdirected herself by equating the concept of property with legal tender. “The Regional Magistrates Court grossly erred and grossly misdirected itself in concluding that cryptocurrency tokens were not property capable of being stolen simply because cryptocurrency is not recognized in Zimbabwe as legal tender, as if property needs to be legal tender for it to be adjudged as capable of being stolen,” Rubaya wrote.

Rubaya added that his client is of the firm belief that the High Court of Zimbabwe will arrive at a different decision. In his statement, Rubaya contends that digital assets are recognized as property under Zimbabwean law. He added that they fall into the category of incorporeal rights vested in a person and relate to movable property, which he says can be unlawfully taken. He also added that digital assets have tangible monetary value as they can be converted to money.

Rubaya argues against the magistrate’s court’s verdict

In view of his argument, Rubaya claimed that since the said digital assets can be converted into foreign currencies like the United States dollars, it is considered a view that money cannot be limited only to what is recognized as legal tender under the laws of Zimbabwe. “Money includes an entry in an account. There is no indication that the account being referred to in Section 112 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act is only a normal bank account. Cryptocurrency tokens are kept as entries in a cryptocurrency account,” he added.

Rubaya also urged the NPA to adopt a broader interpretation of the law, noting that control of a crypto account equates to control of the digital assets held within it. “When one has control of the cryptocurrency account, that person has control of the cryptocurrency tokens, which means the owner of the account has an incorporeal right vested in him or her, and that right is capable of being unlawfully and intentionally taken,” he argued.

He also alleged that the Chiyangwas unlawfully transferred digital assets from Guramatunhu’s wallets to their own, thereby intentionally and unlawfully assuming ownership over assets belonging to the complainant. “The Chiyangwas connived to unlawfully and intentionally assume title in relation to Dr Guramatunhu’s incorporeal right to exercise title to the cryptocurrency tokens,” Rubaya stated. In the letter, Rubaya also promised to assist the NPA with research and legal material.

“In light of the arguments raised herein, and with a view to ascertain whether there are prospects of success on appeal against the Chiyangwas’ acquittal, we have been instructed to assist you with research and legal material to allow you to appreciate the legal issues raised, so that the Chiyangwas can be held accountable for their alleged criminal misconduct,” Rubaya said. The case WOULD likely test Zimbabwe’s legal interpretation of digital assets and whether they can be treated as property.

Sign up to Bybit and start trading with $30,050 in welcome gifts