Hong Kong JPEX Case Update: Two suspects laundered HKD 26.4 million, prosecution issues an additional sentencing notice

The unlicensed virtual asset trading platform JPEX was exposed in 2023 for suspected fraud, and the case investigation continues to advance. According to the latest news, two suspects involved in money laundering totaling approximately HKD 26.4 million have been brought before the Hong Kong District Court in two separate cases. The prosecution has issued notices of increased sentencing and recorded them in court documents. Judge Ko Kin-siu has adjourned the two cases to March 31 and April 9 respectively for further hearings. As of now, police have prosecuted 16 individuals.

Judicial Progress Accelerates

Money Laundering Amounts and Sentencing Notices

In this case, two suspects are involved in money laundering totaling HKD 26.4 million. The issuance of sentencing notices by the prosecution indicates that the authorities consider the case to be serious and are seeking harsher penalties during sentencing. This move demonstrates the increasing emphasis of Hong Kong law enforcement on virtual asset fraud cases.

According to relevant information, among the accused is internet celebrity Zhu Jiahui, who is suspected of laundering HKD 18.8 million and has been charged with three additional money laundering offenses. This indicates that the complexity and severity of the case are deepening.

Case Scale and Impact

From the above table, it is evident that the JPEX case has become one of the largest virtual asset fraud cases in Hong Kong in recent years. More than 2,000 investors have suffered significant financial losses, and the case has a broad and profound impact.

Systemic Risks in the Virtual Asset Sector

Why This Case Is Worth Attention

The JPEX case reflects the systemic risks associated with virtual asset trading platforms. Unlicensed platforms lack regulatory oversight and are easily exploited by scammers. These platforms often recruit celebrities and influencers to endorse them, leveraging their influence to attract ordinary investors, then defraud funds through false promises, market manipulation, and other means.

Personal opinion: The warning from this case underscores the importance of compliance and transparency in the virtual asset market. Investors must verify whether a platform holds proper licensing as their first line of defense in protecting themselves.

Global Trends in Cryptocurrency Scams

According to relevant information, cryptocurrency scams are not unique to Hong Kong. The FBI in the United States has pointed out that crypto ATM scams are rampant, with related losses soaring by 33% in 2025. Many elderly individuals are deceived by impersonators of government officials, transferring their life savings into ATMs, with funds becoming nearly impossible to recover once transferred. This indicates that crypto scams have become a global issue requiring coordinated law enforcement efforts worldwide.

Future Court Proceedings

According to court records, the case will be further heard on March 31 and April 9. The separate hearings for the two cases may be due to different defendants or charges involved. This suggests that the case will undergo several months of judicial procedures, and the final verdict will have significant implications for virtual asset regulation in Hong Kong.

Summary

The latest developments in the JPEX case indicate that Hong Kong law enforcement is intensifying efforts to combat virtual asset fraud. The HKD 26.4 million money laundering amount and the sentencing notices reflect the seriousness of the case. With over 2,700 victims and losses exceeding USD 206 million, this has become a major case with far-reaching impact.

For investors, this case provides a clear warning: choosing licensed virtual asset trading platforms is crucial, and they should not be deceived by celebrity endorsements or promises of high returns. For regulators, the case progress demonstrates Hong Kong’s determination to enforce laws in the virtual asset sector, but more importantly, it highlights the need to establish a more comprehensive pre-emptive regulatory mechanism rather than relying solely on post-incident enforcement.