Weekend Herald

Crims rinse $45k in Bitcoin from cops

Targets of online money-laundering probe turn tables on investigat­ors

- David Fisher

Police officers were hoodwinked by the criminals they were targeting and had $45,000 in Bitcoin stolen during a covert online police operation.

The undercover online investigat­ion was into money laundering but led to the detectives carrying out the operation being rinsed by the criminals they were pursuing.

The missing money has led to two further police inquiries.

One internal investigat­ion has identified gaps in police procedures which failed to adequately protect the taxpayer money.

A criminal investigat­ion into the money being taken was also launched but has so far failed to identify where the money went, or who took it.

The loss of the money, which was taken from a police Bitcoin wallet, was considered significan­t enough that Commission­er Andrew Coster was told and then briefed Minister of Police Poto Williams.

Williams confirmed she was briefed during a standard meeting with police but said the content of the discussion was confidenti­al. The loss was also immediatel­y reported to police’s external auditors.

National Criminal Investigat­ion Group intercept and technology operations manager Detective Inspector Stuart Mills said: “Police has committed to learning from this incident, and to introducin­g stronger processes so that it does not happen again.”

Mills said police had purchased Bitcoin for $45,000 for use in an investigat­ion. He said it was discovered in late 2020 that the money was gone.

He said the money was “fraudulent­ly obtained from a police Bitcoin wallet during an operation” aimed at money laundering.

Mills said the culprits were “likely based overseas” and the “offending was part of a wider fraud targeting Bitcoin wallets”.

The Weekend Herald had been told the money was intended to be used for a “controlled purchase” — a sting in which police attempt to buy illicit goods or services.

Police launched a criminal investigat­ion into the “fraud” led by a detective sergeant from the National Organised Crime Group.

“The offenders have not yet been identified,” Mills said.

The second inquiry into police processes around the handling of the Bitcoin was led by Detective Inspector Christiaan Barnard, manager of the police Financial Intelligen­ce Unit.

This included “reviewing the actions and decisions taken by staff ”, Mills said. He said the operation had been approved under police standard procedures and the investigat­ion found no misconduct by staff.

The review made recommenda­tions to improve police processes. An updated policy had been drafted and was currently under consultati­on.

The founder of NZ-based cryptocurr­ency BitPrime, Ross CarterBrow­n, greeted news of the loss with the words: “That’s pretty wild.”

Carter-Brown said Bitcoin and other cryptocurr­encies differed from usual bank transactio­ns in that proof of ownership of the funds was based on possession, which was controlled by having the private key — a code — that controlled access to the wallet.

For those who forgot the private key, there was also the option of a back-up phrase that could allow recovery of the funds.

Carter-Brown said whoever took the $45,000 “would have had to have access to the private keys to that wallet or the back-up phrase”.

“Having those private keys is the same thing as having money. If I was in charge . . . I’d be looking at who had access to the keys or back-up phrase.”

Carter-Brown said he was not suggesting that was where the money went but it pointed to who had access or control over the funds.

A breach of security in storing the private key was possible but would likely need penetratio­n of police networks to access, he said.

“It also seems unlikely someone would voluntaril­y hand it over.”

The most likely option was that a controlled purchase went wrong and those the police sought to entrap disappeare­d with the money without supplying the goods or services.

“If [police] sent it to somebody and that person didn’t keep their end of the bargain, you can’t reverse it,”

Carter-Brown said. “[Cryptocurr­ency] is unforgivin­g. If you make a mistake, you can’t reverse it.”

The police loss highlighte­d advice from the Financial Markets Authority, which stated: “All online transactio­ns are at risk of cyber-crime. The cryptocurr­ency in your digital wallet can be stolen just like the money in your real wallet — with very little chance of it being returned.”

Victoria University of Wellington criminolog­ist Dr Trevor Bradley said the investigat­ion of cybercrime was “almost virgin territory” for Kiwi police. “When it comes to cybercrime, they are babes in arms, really.”

He said those dealing with cybercrime in NZ were spread across a number of agencies, “fragmentin­g” a talent pool challenged by an area of criminal enterprise that was growing rapidly in scale and sophistica­tion.

“I know the police are beginning to recognise these deficienci­es and trying to address them. [Cybercrime] is a real big problem and a growing problem and the fragmentat­ion is not helping.”

 ??  ?? Poto Williams
Poto Williams
 ??  ?? Stuart Mills
Stuart Mills

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand