Telegram Under Fire: Crypto Scammers Resurface After Crackdown

Telegram is once again facing scrutiny, accused of enabling cryptocurrency scammers. Despite recent high-profile crackdowns on major criminal marketplaces like Haowang Guarantee and Xinbi Guarantee, which processed a staggering $35 billion in illicit transactions, these platforms have swiftly bounced back. A report from the analytics firm Elliptic reveals that these criminal networks not only revived but also discovered new ways to circumvent restrictions.

The Black Market Flourishes

According to Elliptic's data, the void left by the previous blocks was quickly filled by smaller black markets. A prime example is Tudou Guarantee, partially owned by Haowang Guarantee's parent company. Its volume has doubled, and the platform now serves 289,000 users, processing $15 million in cryptocurrency payments daily. What's more, Xinbi Guarantee has also relaunched, regaining almost all of its users.

Tom Robinson, co-founder of Elliptic, expressed deep disappointment. He emphasizes that these scammers, who have caused suffering to millions of victims, will continue to thrive if not actively pursued. However, according to Robinson, Telegram has not removed new accounts linked to these illicit operations.

Telegram's Contested Stance and Expert Opinions

Telegram representatives explain their position by stating that the blocked channels are primarily associated with users in China who are seeking ways to bypass strict capital controls. The messenger asserts its commitment to protecting users' "financial independence."

However, Robinson vehemently disagrees with this justification, arguing that these markets facilitate money laundering and fraud, rather than financial freedom. Erin West, a former prosecutor and head of the non-profit Operation Shamrock, added that Telegram "provides an online bulletin board for crypto fraudsters."

Jacob Sims from Harvard University suggests that Telegram's apparent inconsistency might stem from a desire to avoid conflict with the U.S. government. He believes that further action from Telegram may require additional pressure from American authorities, as tech companies might lack sufficient motivation to take initiative in combating such phenomena without external incentives.