Federal agents seized more than $1.2 million in cryptocurrency tied to a nationwide “wrong number” text-based scam that lured victims into phony investment schemes, the Department of Justice announced. Investigators say the operation began with unsolicited text messages that established contact, then moved to building rapport and trust before steering targets into purported crypto investment opportunities promising high returns.

Victims were directed to transfer cryptocurrencies to sham trading platforms operating under the names TMGM and NEEX. Once funds were deposited, withdrawal attempts were routinely frustrated — victims encountered delays, shifting excuses, or fresh demands for additional payments to unlock funds. Blockchain tracing was used to follow the movement of stolen assets across addresses and into aggregator wallets, enabling authorities to identify and seize more than $1.2 million in crypto. The DOJ characterized the action as a civil asset seizure; it is a forfeiture proceeding rather than a criminal charge. Source: https://www.kctv5.com/2025/12/19/federal-agents-seize-12-million-wrong-number-cryptocurrency-scam/

Why this matters to markets and retail participants

• The case illustrates a recurrent scam pattern: low-effort, high-volume outreach (e.g., “wrong number” texts) that escalates into social-engineering and coaxed transfers to on-chain destinations.
• Even when assets are on-chain, attribution and recovery are possible when investigators combine blockchain analytics with traditional investigative techniques; seizure here was enabled by traceability of crypto flows.
• The civil-forfeiture route highlights a limitation: asset seizure can occur without criminal indictment, which affects restitution prospects and how quickly victims may have recourse.

Operational mechanics to watch

• Scam lifecycles often follow predictable stages: initial contact, trust-building, false platform onboarding, deposit, and then engineered friction at withdrawal. These stages amplify urgency and rationalize requests for more capital.
• Fake platforms commonly mimic legitimate UX and branding; verifying domain ownership, licensing claims, and on-chain custody paths can reveal inconsistencies.
• On-chain tracing tools can map fund flows but do not guarantee immediate recovery — timing, use of intermediaries, and conversion to fiat complicate outcomes.

Practical safeguards for investors

• Treat unsolicited investment solicitations (texts, DMs, cold calls) as high-risk; verify identities independently and avoid following embedded links.
• Before sending crypto, confirm platform custody and withdrawal pathways, check for regulatory registration where applicable, and test with very small transfers.
• Use blockchain explorers to inspect destination addresses for prior scam activity or links to known mixer services; consider professional analytics if larger sums are at stake.
• Preserve all communications and transaction records; they’re essential for investigators and civil recovery processes.

Regulatory and enforcement takeaway

• The incident underscores both the persistent adaptability of fraudsters and the growing role of on-chain intelligence in dismantling schemes. Civil forfeiture remains a tool for asset recovery, but it does not replace criminal prosecution or guarantee restitution to victims.