Termination of BTCMining
A cryptocurrency venture based in the United Kingdom, known as BTCMining, has been terminated following numerous reports from clients around the globe who alleged they paid for mining services but did not receive the expected returns or had trouble withdrawing their investments. A statement issued on Wednesday outlined the issues customers faced, highlighting complaints from individuals in countries such as Estonia, Iran, Romania, New Zealand, Mauritania, and Poland.
Investigation and Allegations
Reports of dissatisfaction with BTCMining prompted Action Fraud, the UK’s official fraud and cybercrime reporting agency, to begin investigating. Many individuals asserted that not only did they fail to receive the mining services they had financed, but they were also subjected to additional payment demands to access their funds. Authorities discovered during their investigation that BTCMining Limited lacked a legitimate registered address in the UK, raising serious concerns about its operations.
Court Hearing and Closure
The turning point for BTCMining occurred during a court hearing at the High Court in Manchester on April 28, 2025, which resulted in the company’s closure. David Usher, who serves as the chief investigator for the Insolvency Service, emphasized the widespread implications of the alleged fraud. He noted that the company’s ability to attract international customers necessitated urgent action.
“We needed to intervene promptly to prevent harm to more individuals both within the UK and globally,”
Usher commented.
Director’s Disappearance and Victim Statistics
Efforts to reach the firm’s director, Stibich Martins Yhaicha Luzia, have proven unsuccessful. Since the company’s establishment in January 2024, he had been the only director. Attempts to contact him through known communication methods yielded no results, and the company’s online presence has either ceased to function or failed to provide updated information. Furthermore, the address associated with Luzia in Companies House turned out to be a residential property, whose residents reported having no prior knowledge of the business operating from their address.
While only six formal complaints have been documented with Action Fraud, investigators suspect that the actual number of victims may be significantly greater, with aggregated losses reported to exceed $18,000. This amount may represent only a small portion of the overall financial damage incurred by individuals involved.
