The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed two federal complaints on September 17, 2024 against five entities and three individuals connected to alleged relationship investment scams built around the supposed crypto trading platforms NanoBit and CoinW6.
The SEC described the lawsuits as its first enforcement actions alleging this type of scam. That made the filings consequential beyond the defendants themselves: the securities regulator was applying its antifraud and registration authorities to operations that allegedly combined prolonged social engineering, crypto transfers and fabricated investment interfaces.
The allegations had not been adjudicated on September 17. The complaints initiated civil cases, and their descriptions of defendants, losses and conduct remained claims the SEC would need to establish in court.
NanoBit allegedly impersonated financial professionals
The NanoBit complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against NanoBit Limited, Radiant Horizons Limited, Sweet Karma Fashion Inc., Zhao Tropical Deli Inc., Jiajie Liu, Fei Liao and Hua Zhao.
According to the SEC, scheme participants impersonated financial-industry professionals in WhatsApp groups from approximately October 2023 through at least June 2024. They allegedly directed investors toward a supposed NanoBit trading platform and falsely claimed an affiliate called NanobitUS Securities was registered with the SEC.
The supposed professionals then promoted purported initial coin offerings as opportunities for substantial returns. The SEC alleged that the platform and offerings were fictitious, that scheme participants wired more than $2 million to Hong Kong bank accounts, and that hundreds of thousands of dollars in investor crypto assets were misappropriated.
Those figures describe alleged fund movements in the SEC’s case; they are not a Coinburn calculation, a final judicial loss determination or a verified measure of recoverable assets. The agency charged all seven NanoBit defendants with violating federal securities-law antifraud provisions and sought permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest and civil penalties.
CoinW6 allegedly used romantic relationships
The second complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, charged CoinW6, which the SEC identified as operating through several domain names.
The agency alleged that from approximately July 2022 through at least December 2023, people presenting themselves as young, wealthy professionals contacted prospective investors through LinkedIn and Instagram, then pursued romantic relationships over WhatsApp. After establishing trust, they allegedly encouraged targets to fund accounts on CoinW6’s supposed crypto platform.
CoinW6 allegedly advertised passive returns of as much as 3% per day from purported staking, mining and yield-farming products. That percentage was an alleged promotional claim—not a measured return, market yield or verified protocol performance.
The SEC said at least 11 investors transferred approximately $2.2 million. It alleged that displayed investments, profits and balances were fictitious and that withdrawal attempts prompted demands for supposed taxes or fees, false claims of law-enforcement freezes, or attempted blackmail involving romantic communications.
The complaint charged CoinW6 with unregistered securities offerings and antifraud violations. The requested relief included permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, a civil penalty and an order replacing its website pages with the SEC complaint.
Why the enforcement milestone mattered
These cases treated the fake platforms as more than misleading websites. The SEC alleged that CoinW6’s nonexistent staking, mining and yield-farming products were investment contracts, while both lawsuits framed the purported platforms as mechanisms for securities fraud.
That theory connected familiar federal antifraud provisions with a scam structure in which crypto assets could be transferred quickly while fabricated dashboards displayed nonexistent profits. It did not mean that every romance scam, crypto transfer or staking product was necessarily a securities transaction; the charges depended on the specific alleged representations and investment arrangements.
The September 17 record established that the SEC had opened two civil enforcement cases and formally categorized them as its first relationship-investment-scam actions. It did not establish liability, final victim losses, asset recovery or criminal guilt. No cryptocurrency price or market-reaction claim can be supported by the complaints, so none is inferred from them.
The complete source packet and revision history are retained with the newsroom record.
Automated systems may have assisted with source organization and drafting. Coinburn is accountable for the published text and maintains a revision record.
This article provides news and analysis, not investment, legal or tax advice. Digital assets are volatile and may result in total loss.