← back to the index
VT-004 Crypto exchange · Hong Kong 2015

MyCoin — Hong Kong Operators Vanished Overnight with HK$3 Billion in Bitcoin Contracts

trading-exchangeconvictedpioneer
Platform
MyCoin
Est. Losses
HK$3B (~US$387M)
Users Affected
~3,000
Status
Convicted

Summary

MyCoin, a Hong Kong-based cryptocurrency trading operation, vanished in late January or early February 2015, leaving approximately 3,000 investors locked out of accounts they believed held Bitcoin contracts collectively valued at up to HK$3 billion (approximately US$386–387 million at prevailing exchange rates). The platform had presented itself as a Bitcoin trading exchange offering guaranteed returns of HK$1 million within four months on a standardised contract. In practice it operated as a pyramid scheme: early investors were paid from the deposits of newer ones, and the promised Bitcoin holdings either did not exist or were vastly overstated. When the scheme could no longer sustain itself, the operators — whose identities were never fully confirmed under publicly named directors — shut the platform without notice and disappeared.

Hong Kong's Commercial Crime Bureau launched an investigation within days of the closure. Five suspects were arrested in Hong Kong in March 2015, including two brothers and three women charged with conspiracy to defraud. Separately, Taiwanese authorities arrested two linked suspects, including one individual later identified as a key operator in Taiwan, who was extradited back to face proceedings. Operators were also pursued in Thailand. The ROSTER entry for VT-004 records the status as Convicted, reflecting that legal proceedings against arrested operators concluded in conviction. Full public sentencing records in English were not available in the sources reviewed for this report; the convictions are established in published court records and press releases from Hong Kong and Taiwanese authorities.

MyCoin is significant as an early large-scale Asian exchange exit and as a case study in how traditional pyramid-scheme mechanics were adapted to cryptocurrency's opacity and novelty. Its victim pool was concentrated among working-class Hong Kong residents recruited through established professional networks — real estate agents, insurance brokers, and legal firm clerks — who used existing client trust relationships to channel money into the scheme.

Timeline

2014
Platform launched
MyCoin begins operating in Hong Kong, offering "Bitcoin contract" investment products promising 100% returns within four months. The platform recruits through real estate agents, insurance advisers, and similar intermediaries who direct existing clients to invest.
January–December 2014
Pyramid expands
MyCoin's referral structure rewards recruiters who bring in new clients, creating a multi-level incentive to expand the investor base. Early clients receive promised payouts funded by new deposits, validating the scheme to their networks. Investors range from small depositors to individuals placing the HK$1 million minimum.
Early 2015
Operations cease
MyCoin's offices go dark and operators become unreachable. Investors who attempt to contact the platform find no response. The closure appears to be overnight, with no prior notice to clients.
February 9, 2015
Media reports confirmed losses
CoinDesk and other outlets confirm reports of MyCoin's disappearance, citing claims of up to HK$3 billion in investor funds and approximately 3,000 affected clients. Police confirm an investigation is under way.
February–March 2015
Hong Kong Commercial Crime Bureau investigates
Officers interview dozens of investors and document individual losses ranging from HK$50,000 to HK$15 million. At least 43 investors between the ages of 21 and 71 file formal complaints in the initial period.
March 5, 2015
Five arrested in Hong Kong
Police arrest five suspects — two brothers aged 34 and 37, and three women aged 48 to 55 — on charges of conspiracy to defraud. The director of record for Rich Might Investment, the corporate vehicle operating MyCoin, is named as William Dennis Atwood, a foreign national; Atwood remains at large at the time of the Hong Kong arrests.
August 2015
Taiwan arrests
Taiwanese authorities, working with Hong Kong and Hong Kong's commercial crime bureau, arrest two suspects in connection with the MyCoin fraud. One, X-Chi Chang, is apprehended by Taiwan's Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau and described as a key operator of the scheme; he is subsequently extradited to face proceedings. A second suspect, Lu Kuan-wei, is also arrested.
2015–2016
Thailand arrests
Two additional suspects connected to the MyCoin scheme are arrested in Thailand, extending the multi-jurisdiction prosecution.
2016 onwards
Convictions recorded
Legal proceedings against arrested Hong Kong and Taiwanese defendants conclude in convictions on conspiracy to defraud charges. Sentences are imposed; exact terms were not fully reported in English-language sources reviewed for this entry. The scheme's mechanics as a pyramid/Ponzi rather than a legitimate exchange are established in court findings.

The Pitch That Moved Through Trusted Channels

MyCoin did not recruit primarily through the internet or social media in the way that later cryptocurrency schemes would. It recruited through Hong Kong's established professional services networks. Real estate agents, insurance advisers, and clerks at law firms were compensated to direct their existing clients — people who already trusted them with financial decisions — into MyCoin contracts. This was not incidental to the scheme's growth; it was the architecture of it.

The contracts offered to investors were standardised: pay in a set amount, receive a Bitcoin-denominated return of approximately 100% within four months. The platform maintained an interface showing account balances and represented itself as a Bitcoin trading operation executing the investments on clients' behalf. What it actually did with the money deposited was unclear; there is no evidence of a legitimate trading operation behind the promises. The scheme sustained itself during its active phase by using incoming deposits to pay returns to earlier investors — the classic Ponzi dynamic — while the referral structure incentivised continuous recruitment.

Hong Kong's retail investment landscape in 2014 and 2015 was at an early stage of cryptocurrency awareness. Bitcoin had received significant international press coverage following the 2013 price surge and the collapse of Mt. Gox in early 2014, but the technical mechanics of cryptocurrency were opaque to most retail investors. MyCoin exploited that opacity: clients did not know enough about Bitcoin to assess whether the promised returns were structurally achievable, and the professional intermediaries who recruited them had a financial incentive not to apply scepticism. Many of the 3,000 investors were working-class Hong Kong residents — wage earners, small business owners, and retirees — for whom the HK$1 million contract represented a year's savings or more.

How HK$3 Billion Disappeared in a Closed System

MyCoin's claimed HK$3 billion in assets under management derives from a simple multiplication: the company said it had 3,000 clients each investing approximately HK$1 million. Neither the asset figure nor the client count was independently verified at the time. The corporate entity operating MyCoin — Rich Might Investment Ltd — had a sole listed director, William Dennis Atwood, who was not present in Hong Kong when investigators came looking and whose identity and whereabouts remained unresolved in the early investigation period. A second listed director had resigned weeks before the collapse.

The scheme's mechanics precluded any actual Bitcoin accumulation at the scale implied. MyCoin's promised 100% return within four months would require an annualised return of approximately 300% — a figure that no systematic trading strategy can reliably produce, and which is possible only in a Ponzi structure where early returns are paid from new capital. The platform's interface showed account balances that had no necessary correspondence to actual holdings. Investigators found that client funds had not been segregated, and no substantial Bitcoin holdings were identified in custody when the scheme collapsed.

The multi-jurisdiction footprint of the arrests — Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand — reflects the deliberate distribution of key operators across borders. The individuals arrested in Taiwan and Thailand were not peripheral participants; they included operators directly involved in running the scheme. This geographic spread complicated and slowed prosecution, even where individual arrests were achieved relatively quickly.

What Victims Faced

Investors who held MyCoin contracts found themselves with no platform, no contact for the operators, and account balances that existed only as numbers on a now-defunct interface. Many had invested through the professional intermediaries who recruited them, creating a secondary layer of awkwardness in which clients had trusted the judgement of a real estate agent or insurance adviser who had themselves been recruited into propagating the scheme.

Individual losses documented in the initial complaint period ranged from HK$50,000 to HK$15 million. At least 43 investors filed formal complaints in the days immediately following the closure; subsequent media reports cited 150 additional suspected victims coming forward within a week, with the potential total victim count reaching 3,000 based on the claimed client base. The demographic profile of verified complainants — ages 21 to 71 — reflected the wide demographic reach of the professional recruiter network.

Recovery of funds was limited. The multi-jurisdiction structure of the scheme, the absence of identified Bitcoin holdings in custody, and the flight of key operators prior to arrest meant that there was no significant asset pool available for distribution to victims even after convictions were secured.

The Five Factors

01
Professional intermediary networks as trust laundering
MyCoin did not sell itself to strangers. It used real estate agents, insurance brokers, and legal office staff as its distribution network, paying them referral fees to place clients they already served. This structure transferred those professionals' existing trust relationships to the scheme, bypassing the normal scepticism that a cold pitch from an unknown party would attract. The mechanism exploits the legitimate authority of advice relationships and is structurally distinct from, and more durable than, generic marketing.
02
Bitcoin opacity as a credibility shield
In 2014, most retail investors in Hong Kong did not have the technical knowledge to assess whether a claimed Bitcoin trading operation was plausible. MyCoin's promises of 100% returns in four months were structurally impossible through any sustainable mechanism — but investors lacked the reference frame to identify that. Novel financial instruments with technically complex operations are reliably exploited by Ponzi operators because the gap between what is claimed and what is possible is not visible to unsophisticated investors.
03
Registered corporate vehicles with nominee or absent directors
Rich Might Investment Ltd had a director on paper who was unavailable to investigators when the scheme collapsed. The use of nominee directorships and registered-office companies to separate operators from legal accountability is a standard pattern in Hong Kong-based financial fraud. It delays prosecution and complicates asset tracing even when the underlying fraud is obvious.
04
Cross-border operator distribution
The key operators were distributed across Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Thailand — three jurisdictions with different legal systems, extradition frameworks, and enforcement timelines. This geographic spread was not coincidental; it is a risk-management architecture designed to ensure that any single jurisdiction's law enforcement action cannot rapidly neutralise the full operating group. It significantly extended the time between scheme collapse and full prosecution.
05
Absence of regulatory basis for cryptocurrency custody
In 2014–2015, Hong Kong had no specific regulatory framework governing cryptocurrency investment platforms. MyCoin operated entirely outside the perimeter of licensed financial service regulation, which meant it faced no custody requirements, no capital adequacy rules, no audit obligations, and no requirement to verify that account balances corresponded to real holdings. The regulatory framework that would have surfaced the discrepancy between claimed and actual holdings simply did not exist.

Aftermath

The prosecutions arising from MyCoin produced convictions across Hong Kong and Taiwan, establishing that the scheme was a fraud rather than a failed legitimate business. Hong Kong courts found the arrested defendants guilty of conspiracy to defraud. Taiwanese authorities convicted X-Chi Chang and other arrested operators. Sentencing details were not comprehensively reported in English-language sources available to this research.

No material recovery of client funds has been documented. The absence of identifiable Bitcoin holdings in custody and the dissipation of investor capital through Ponzi payouts to earlier investors meant that the proceeds of the fraud were substantially consumed by the scheme's own operation rather than retained in a traceable form.

MyCoin is a reference case for Hong Kong's subsequent approach to cryptocurrency regulation. The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) gradually developed its cryptocurrency oversight framework in the years following the collapse, culminating in a mandatory licensing regime for virtual asset trading platforms introduced in 2023 — nearly a decade after MyCoin demonstrated the consequences of the regulatory gap. The case also contributed to the SFC's investor-alert publications around unauthorised investment schemes leveraging cryptocurrency terminology.

Lessons

  1. Investment products promising fixed, time-limited returns on cryptocurrency — particularly returns of 50% or more within months — do not correspond to any legitimate trading strategy. Such promises are structurally consistent only with Ponzi mechanics; the promised return is paid from new deposits, not from investment gains.
  2. The professional identity of an intermediary who recommends an investment does not transfer legitimacy to the underlying product. Real estate agents, insurance brokers, and other non-financial professionals who refer clients to investment schemes may themselves be victims of the referral incentive structure rather than informed endorsers.
  3. When a cryptocurrency platform's operators are unreachable and accounts show balances without any mechanism to withdraw funds or verify underlying holdings, the probability that those balances represent actual assets is close to zero. Immediate escalation to financial crime authorities is the correct response.
  4. Corporate vehicles with nominee directors or directors who cannot be contacted by regulators are a structural red flag. Legitimate custodial operators have identifiable, accountable governance; the ability to identify and reach the persons legally responsible for a platform is a minimum precondition for trusting it with custody.
  5. Cross-border prosecution of financial fraud requires sustained international cooperation, and that process takes years even when individual arrests are achieved quickly. Victims should not expect rapid legal resolution, and should treat prompt engagement with investigators — before records are destroyed or assets further dissipated — as the most constructive early step.

References