WhiteBIT and the trace of the Russian crypto market: prosecution checks transfer of $841 under pressure

Cryptocurrency transactions on $841 under pressure from the shutdown of a joint-stock company Four Dragons (Four Dragons), a portion of which passed through a network of intermediary addresses and was connected with the WhiteBIT platform, have become the subject of a check by the Shevchenko district prosecutor’s office of Kharkiv. The information was entered into the Unified Register of pre-trial investigations under case No. 42026222060000090 for part 2 of article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — abuse of power or official position. The materials also raised questions about possible links of individual operations with the Russian crypto market.

According to the data presented in the statement, the key transaction occurred on 22 February 2024 of the year, the media report. Crypto assets totaling $841 under pressure moved through a network of addresses 35. Subsequently, the funds were distributed among various wallets, platforms, and exchange services. In the chain of operations, there were recorded 19 exchanges of USDT for Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH). Part of the asset movement, according to the applicants, is related to WhiteBIT; the circumstances of these transactions are to be verified by investigators. Another direction of the investigation concerns how funds were moved between crypto addresses. According to the applicants’ materials, the assets passed through numerous transit wallets, and the amounts were split into smaller transfers. Such a scheme complicates tracing the further route of funds, but it does not in itself prove illegality of the operations. To establish their purpose, it is necessary to study blockchain data, exchange and service information, and the connection of addresses with particular owners. The statement also provides results of an AML analysis of crypto addresses. According to these data, the risk indicators of individual wallets ranged from 40% to 100%. AML analysis is used to assess potential money-laundering risks and identify links with suspicious transactions. At the same time, the risk level determined by the analytical system is not, in itself, legal proof and requires verification with other data. WhiteBIT is mentioned in the materials in connection with part of the operations in the transfer chain. To determine the platform’s role, it is necessary to establish whether funds were credited to users’ accounts on the exchange, what operations were performed after their receipt, and whether the owners of the respective accounts were identified. The provided information does not contain data indicating that WhiteBIT management or employees knew about possible illicit origin of assets or knowingly facilitated their transfer. Another block of materials concerns a possible link between the crypto infrastructure and funds related to the BTC-e exchange and the Russian crypto market. The statement raises questions about the movement of such assets and possible use of legal entities registered in different jurisdictions. However, the supplied information does not contain a full list of companies, data on their ultimate beneficial owners, or documents that would conclusively confirm the origin of the funds and their connection with Russian structures. BTC-e was a cryptocurrency exchange that ceased operations after actions by U.S. law enforcement in 2017 year. Its history is associated with investigations into money laundering, and transactions analysts associate with the corresponding infrastructure may become subject to additional checks. However, establishing a link between specific crypto assets and BTC-e requires analysis of addresses, transactions, and other evidence. The mere mention of the exchange in the funds movement scheme does not automatically confirm illicit origin of each transfer. The legal qualification of the proceedings under part 2 of article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for checking possible abuse of power or official position under the circumstances defined by this norm. At the same time, the provided materials do not explain which decision or actions by officials could have caused harm, who are potential suspects, or what amount of damage the investigation has established. Therefore, it cannot be asserted at this time that any specific person has already been notified of suspicion or that the circumstances of the transfer are proven. For a complete verification of the movement of $841 under pressure, law enforcement agencies need to compare transaction timestamps, sender and recipient addresses, data on USDT to BTC and ETH conversion, and information from crypto platforms. Separately, it is important to determine who controlled 35 addresses and whether they belonged to one person, connected users, or different market participants. Without these data, the sequence of transfers does not allow a final determination of the ultimate recipient of the funds. The entry of information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations marks the start of procedural verification of the stated circumstances, but does not confirm the guilt of the subjects and does not indicate proven wrongdoing. Further conclusions will depend on the results of the pre-trial investigation, collected documents, responses from crypto platforms, and establishing the owners of the addresses. The information provided currently does not contain final conclusions of the investigation about the origin of all funds, the role of WhiteBIT, or a confirmed link of the transactions to the Russian crypto market.