Chinese national Jingliang Su has been handed a 46‑month federal prison sentence in the United States for his role in laundering $36.9 million tied to a sprawling USDT‑based “pig butchering” crypto scam that targeted American investors and routed their money through offshore channels to Cambodia.
US prosecutors describe the case as part of a growing push to dismantle large, cross‑border fraud rings that exploit digital assets and social engineering to strip victims of their life savings. In total, 174 people across the United States were defrauded, with their funds funneled out of US bank accounts, moved through the Bahamas, converted into stablecoins, and dispersed to wallets controlled by international crime groups.
How the laundering network operated
According to the US Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, Su was an integral part of an international money‑laundering pipeline that turned traditional bank deposits into seemingly untraceable crypto transfers. The operation relied heavily on Tether (USDT), a dollar‑pegged stablecoin widely used in global crypto trading, but also increasingly favored by criminal groups for its speed and liquidity.
Investigators say more than $36.9 million was first pooled into a single account at Deltec Bank in the Bahamas. From there, the funds were swiftly converted into USDT and sent to cryptocurrency wallets hosted in Cambodia. Once the money reached these wallets, co‑conspirators scattered the assets across numerous addresses and platforms in Southeast Asia, making recovery exceptionally difficult and obscuring the ultimate beneficiaries of the scam.
Su’s role involved coordinating these transfers, helping to operate an unlicensed money‑transmitting business that sat at the heart of the laundering architecture. He has been in federal custody since December 2024 and in June 2025 pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to operate such an illegal business. Alongside his 46‑month sentence, he was ordered to pay more than $26 million in restitution.
Eight additional defendants have also admitted guilt in connection with the broader scheme. Among them, Jose Somarriba and ShengSheng He received prison terms of 36 months and 51 months, respectively, underscoring the scale and seriousness of the conspiracy.
The anatomy of a pig‑butchering scam
The criminal structure uncovered in Su’s case closely matches the model of so‑called “pig butchering” scams — extended, emotionally manipulative cons that blend romance fraud, investment hype, and sophisticated technical setups.
Fraudsters began by contacting potential victims out of the blue via social media, dating apps, unsolicited text messages, and phone calls. Instead of pitching investments immediately, scammers first invested time in building rapport. They posed as successful traders, professionals, or romantic prospects, often cultivating the illusion of an intimate or trusted relationship over weeks or months.
Once trust was established, victims were gradually introduced to what appeared to be exclusive, high‑yield crypto opportunities. The targets were then directed to polished websites and mobile interfaces engineered to mimic legitimate trading platforms. These fake portals displayed fabricated account balances and impressive “returns,” encouraging victims to deposit more in pursuit of even larger profits.
Behind the scenes, however, the victim funds were never being invested. Instead, deposits were siphoned off almost immediately, routed through bank accounts like the Deltec account in the Bahamas, converted into USDT, and then sent on to Cambodia and other hubs where regional scam operations thrived. By the time victims realized they could no longer withdraw their alleged gains, the money trail had been intentionally obscured through layers of offshore and on‑chain transfers.
A warning from US prosecutors
First Assistant US Attorney Bill Essayli emphasized that the professional look and feel of these schemes continues to deceive even cautious individuals. He noted that sleek interfaces, convincing dashboards, and well‑crafted marketing narratives can mask the reality that no genuine investment activity is taking place.
“New investment opportunities may sound intriguing,” Essayli cautioned, “but they have a dark side: attracting criminals who, in this case, stole then laundered tens of millions of dollars from their victims.” Authorities stress that whenever an investment pitch begins with unsolicited contact and rapidly escalates into pressure to send large sums — particularly through crypto — skepticism is essential.
Part of a broader enforcement push
Su’s conviction is not an isolated case. US officials have increasingly linked pig‑butchering scams to organized networks operating from Southeast Asia, particularly in countries such as Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos, where weak enforcement environments and special economic zones have allowed some operations to flourish.
In a separate high‑profile case, US authorities have charged Cambodian tycoon Chen Zhi over alleged involvement in forced‑labor compounds tied to pig‑butchering fraud. Victims in these facilities are reported to include trafficked workers compelled to run scam campaigns targeting individuals around the globe, with cumulative losses running into the billions.
Data from blockchain analytics firms indicates that pig‑butchering and other “high‑yield investment programs” remained among the most damaging scam types in 2025. Crypto fraud and theft collectively accounted for more than $17 billion in losses that year, highlighting how persuasive marketing and emotional manipulation can override basic risk assessment, especially when wrapped in the promise of fast crypto profits.
Why stablecoins like USDT are central to modern scams
The use of Tether in Su’s laundering scheme illustrates a wider trend in crypto‑enabled crime. Stablecoins serve as a bridge between traditional finance and the blockchain: they can be purchased quickly with bank transfers or cards, then moved across borders within minutes, 24/7, often with lower fees than traditional wire transfers.
For legitimate users, these features are part of the appeal. For criminals, they are tools for speed and scale. Once US dollars from defrauded victims were concentrated in the Bahamian account, converting them into USDT allowed Su and his associates to push large sums into Cambodia and beyond while reducing exposure to banking oversight and currency volatility.
Although transactions on major blockchains are transparent and traceable, bad actors attempt to complicate investigations with techniques like address hopping, cross‑chain swaps, layering through multiple wallets, and the use of lightly regulated exchanges. Law‑enforcement agencies have been racing to improve their blockchain forensics capabilities to keep pace with these tactics.
A buoyant market that continues to attract scammers
The case against Su unfolded against the backdrop of a still‑strong digital asset market. Bitcoin has been trading around the $89,127.74 mark over the past 24 hours, with approximately $38.64 billion in daily volume. Ethereum is changing hands near $3,008.32, up about 2.5% over the same period, supported by more than $29.3 billion in trading volume.
Tether, the stablecoin at the heart of Su’s laundering route, continues to hold close to its $1.00 peg, backed by a market capitalization exceeding $186 billion. This scale makes it one of the most liquid instruments in all of crypto — a critical part of legitimate trading activity, but also an attractive vehicle for those seeking to move illicit funds quickly.
The combination of rising prices, widespread media coverage, and stories of overnight wealth keeps drawing in new participants, many of whom are unfamiliar with crypto’s underlying technology and inherent risks. This constant influx of inexperienced investors creates a fertile environment for scammers who continually adapt their narratives to mirror real market trends.
How to spot a pig‑butchering or high‑yield crypto scam
Su’s case underscores several recurring red flags that individuals can watch for:
1. Unsolicited contact
If someone reaches out via text, social media, or a dating app and eventually steers the conversation toward investment opportunities, extreme caution is warranted.
2. Too‑consistent, above‑market returns
Scam platforms often show smooth, ever‑rising gains that ignore market volatility. Real trading involves fluctuations, drawdowns, and risk disclosures.
3. Pressure to move funds off reputable platforms
Victims are frequently urged to bypass well‑known exchanges or banks in favor of obscure websites or apps controlled by scammers.
4. Excuses around withdrawals
When users attempt to cash out, scammers may demand additional “tax” or “fee” payments, claim technical issues, or delay indefinitely. Repeated withdrawal problems are a major warning sign.
5. Requests for remote access or identity documents
Any demand for control over your device or detailed personal information, under the pretext of “verifying” accounts or facilitating trades, can signal identity theft or account‑takeover attempts.
Recognizing these patterns and stepping away at the first sign of inconsistency can prevent losses before they begin.
Practical steps to protect yourself
Beyond spotting red flags, several concrete precautions can dramatically lower the risk of falling into schemes like the one Su helped facilitate:
– Use only established, regulated platforms for buying, selling, or trading crypto, and verify URLs carefully to avoid spoofed sites.
– Independently research any investment that promises unusually high or “guaranteed” returns, and be skeptical of secret or “invitation‑only” strategies.
– Separate your social and financial lives: treat financial advice from strangers online with the same suspicion you would give to a cold call about your bank account.
– Enable strong security measures, such as hardware keys or multi‑factor authentication, on all financial and crypto accounts.
– Consult a trusted third party — such as a financially literate friend, advisor, or legal professional — before sending large amounts of money in response to online pitches, especially when relationships have developed quickly.
Regulatory and industry responses
Enforcement actions like the sentence handed to Su are only one part of the response to the surge in crypto‑related fraud. Regulators around the world are tightening rules governing exchanges, stablecoin issuers, and money‑transmitting businesses. Licensing requirements, know‑your‑customer checks, and suspicious‑activity reporting are being strengthened, aiming to cut off some of the pathways that allow illicit funds to move freely.
At the same time, blockchain analytics tools are becoming more sophisticated. Law‑enforcement teams can often trace stolen assets across chains and through mixing services, even when criminals attempt to fragment and obfuscate the trail. Collaboration between public agencies and private analytics firms has been key in reconstructing flows like the $36.9 million routed through Deltec and into Cambodia.
However, as long as scams can still recruit new victims, enforcement will remain a reactive measure. Education, user awareness, and better platform‑level protections are increasingly seen as critical front‑line defenses.
The human cost behind the numbers
While the figures involved in Su’s case — tens of millions laundered, more than 170 victims, billions in global annual losses — are staggering, they are ultimately abstractions of very personal tragedies. Many targets of pig‑butchering scams are retirees, recent immigrants, or individuals facing economic pressure who see crypto as a possible path to financial relief.
Victims often lose not only their savings, but also their sense of trust in others and in financial systems more broadly. The emotional manipulation at the core of pig‑butchering compounds the financial harm, leaving many ashamed or reluctant to come forward. Authorities encourage reporting regardless of the odds of full recovery, as victim reports can provide vital clues in mapping and dismantling broader networks.
A turning point for crypto crime enforcement?
The sentence imposed on Jingliang Su signals that US courts are prepared to hand down substantial prison terms for those who grease the wheels of large‑scale crypto fraud, even if they are not the ones directly approaching victims. By targeting money launderers and infrastructure operators — not just front‑line scammers — authorities hope to disrupt the operational core of these schemes.
As the crypto market matures, the divide between legitimate innovation and criminal exploitation is coming into sharper focus. Whether future years see a decline in cases like Su’s will depend on how quickly regulators, platforms, and users can adapt — and how determined enforcement remains in following the money, on‑chain and off.