 ▲ Bitcoin held in custody by investigative authorities was found to have been leaked again to the outside. |
Trust in the virtual asset management system of public institutions is being shaken after it was confirmed that Bitcoin seized and stored by investigative authorities was once again leaked externally.
According to police on the 13th, the Seoul Gangnam Police Station recently became aware of circumstances indicating that 22 Bitcoins, which had been voluntarily submitted in November 2021 on suspicion of involvement in a crime and kept in custody, had been transferred out. Police estimate the leak occurred around May 2022, meaning the loss went undetected for nearly four years.
At current market prices, the Bitcoin is worth approximately 2.1 billion won. The seized assets were stored in a cold wallet (offline electronic wallet) in the form of a USB device. While the device itself remained intact, only the Bitcoin stored inside had disappeared. Given the nature of digital assets, where access authority and private key management are crucial, a comprehensive review of management and control procedures appears inevitable.
The impact is greater as this case was identified shortly after it was revealed that 320 Bitcoins, worth about 31.2 billion won, which had been seized and stored by the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office, had also gone missing. Following news of that incident last month, the National Police Agency has been conducting a full inspection of virtual asset holdings at police stations nationwide.
In the Gwangju case, investigators are focusing on the possibility that seized assets were stolen after investigators accessed a phishing website during a work handover process in August last year, and an internal inspection is underway. The Northern Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency has launched a preliminary investigation to examine potential connections between the two cases and whether any internal staff were involved.
The successive leaks of seized virtual assets have brought institutional gaps and inadequate internal controls to the surface. In the market, criticism has emerged that “agencies tasked with cracking down on virtual asset crimes have failed to fulfill their storage responsibilities,” and calls are growing again for a separate custody system for seized digital assets and the introduction of external professional custodians.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice.