Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Vietnam Targets ONUS-Linked Figures in Crypto Fraud Investigation

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

Vietnamese authorities have moved to curb a multi-city crypto fraud case tied to the ONUS platform, detaining several suspects accused of using false promotions and manipulated trading to siphon investor funds. The Ministry of Public Security said the operation centers on a group that sold digital tokens via ONUS, employing misleading campaigns and coordinated market activity to lure users while maintaining centralized control over price and liquidity.

Among those named by investigators are Vuong Le Vinh Nhan, connected to Vemanti Group and tied to XPLOR, the Singapore-based parent company of ONUS Pro; Tran Quang Chien, identified as the ONUS exchange’s technical administrator; and Ngo Thi Thao, director of HanaGold Jewelry JSC. Authorities allege the group created and promoted tokens including VNDC, ONUS and HNG through the ONUS platform, with the probe suggesting billions of dollars were raised from investors. No official loss breakdown has been published.

In parallel to Vietnam’s widening probe, Vemanti Group said it had learned of the indictments from the ministry and Vietnamese media, and it has engaged U.S. legal counsel to assess the situation. Vemanti described Nhan as a board chair and Chien as a board member, though the company has not issued a formal statement on the specifics of the case.

The ONUS platform bills itself as a digital asset ecosystem offering trading, staking and investment products, and has publicly highlighted a user base it characterized as “more than seven million.” Its official X account remains active with a substantial following, while CoinMarketCap lists the ONUS token with a self-reported market capitalization near $25 million, underscoring a sizable gap between public token metrics and the scale of the alleged losses described by authorities. ONUS has not published an official response to the allegations, and Cointelegraph reached out for comment without receiving a reply by publication time.

Advertisement

Key takeaways

  • Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security publicly linked the ONUS platform to a scheme involving false promotions and market manipulation that allegedly defrauded investors, with arrests across multiple cities and a broad net cast over more than 140 individuals questioned.
  • Authorities name specific suspects tied to the ONUS operation, including board-linked figures and a technical administrator, suggesting a centralized scheme rather than decentralized trading.
  • The case highlights a discrepancy between ONUS’s self-promotion of millions of users and tangible market metrics, such as a roughly $25 million self-reported ONUS token market cap on CoinMarketCap.
  • Industry observers should watch how Vietnam’s authorities pursue asset tracing and potential sanctions, given the cross-border links and the involvement of a U.S.-listed affiliate in Vemanti Group.

Vietnam’s crackdown widens and what it signals for investors

The Ministry of Public Security described the investigation as a coordinated, multi-agency effort spanning several Vietnamese cities, with police summoning more than 140 individuals for questioning and seizing evidence as part of a broader push to dismantle large-scale crypto-fraud networks. The authorities framed the ONUS case as emblematic of how promoters can use tokens to simulate legitimacy while concentrating decision-making and price control in a central group.

Within the case’s named actors, the involvement of Vuong Le Vinh Nhan—connected to Vemanti Group and linked to XPLOR, the ONUS Pro parent entity—puts a spotlight on cross-border corporate structures behind some crypto ventures. Tran Quang Chien’s role as a technical administrator, and Ngo Thi Thao’s leadership at HanaGold Jewelry JSC, illustrate how diverse business ties can intersect with token issuance and platform management in Southeast Asia. Prosecutors have not released a full ledger of losses, leaving open questions about the actual financial impact on investors to date.

ONUS presents itself as a broader ecosystem with trading, staking and investment features, a claim that will be weighed against regulator scrutiny and the allegations of misrepresentation. The company’s supporter base and stated figures—such as a seven-million-user claim—contrast with market data that shows a more modest public footprint, inviting questions about user growth, real-world usage and liquidity depth. The absence of an official commentary from ONUS adds another layer of uncertainty for users and builders evaluating the platform’s future viability.

Regulatory context and cross-border risk to watch

The Vietnamese investigation arrives amid an environment where the country is frequently cited as one of the world’s most active retail digital asset markets. Vietnam’s regulatory posture toward crypto has been evolving, with authorities intensifying oversight of exchange activity, token offerings and investor protections. The unfolding ONUS case could inform forthcoming policy responses or enforcement approaches, particularly around token promotions, disclosures, and market manipulation risks.

Beyond Vietnam, the case resonates with broader concerns about crypto-related fraud networks in the region. In a separate development, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation reported the arrest of a Mumbai-based suspect involved in steering victims toward scam compounds in Myanmar, where individuals were forced to run online fraud operations including crypto investment scams and romance scams. The case underscores the transnational nature of many crypto fraud schemes and the demand for cross-border cooperation in tracing illicit proceeds and prosecuting perpetrators.

Advertisement

Vietnam ranks high in global crypto-adoption metrics, with Chainalysis placing it among the more active markets in 2025. Some observers view the ONUS developments as a stress test for enforcement capabilities, liquidity integrity and investor protection in economies where crypto activity is accelerating but regulatory clarity remains a work in progress. The interaction between regulatory risk, platform incentives and user trust will be critical for those evaluating regional exposure to ONUS-like ventures.

As the investigation unfolds, observers will be watching for any court filings, asset-recovery actions, and how disclosures—or the lack thereof—from ONUS, Vemanti, and associated entities influence regulatory decisions and market sentiment. The case may also influence how exchanges and platforms in Vietnam and the wider region approach token issuance hygiene, user onboarding, and the visibility of centralized controls within ostensibly decentralized ecosystems.

Readers should monitor official statements from Vietnamese authorities, updates from Vemanti Group, and any forthcoming court proceedings that could clarify the scope of the alleged fraud, the assets involved, and the potential remedies for affected investors.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

ECB Study Questions How Decentralized DeFi Governance Really is

Published

on

ECB Study Questions How Decentralized DeFi Governance Really is

The European Central Bank published a working paper on March 26, finding that governance in four major DeFi protocols was heavily concentrated.

The staff paper looks at Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth and Uniswap, and finds that while governance tokens are held across tens of thousands of addresses, the top 100 holders control more than 80% of the supply in each protocol.

Based on holdings snapshots from November 2022 and May 2023, the authors found that a large share of governance tokens could be linked either to the protocols themselves or to centralized and decentralized exchanges, with Binance the largest identified centralized exchange holder across the four protocols.

The authors said the findings challenge the idea that decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are inherently decentralized, raising questions about accountability and complicating efforts to identify possible regulatory anchor points under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) framework. MiCA currently excludes “fully decentralised” services from its scope.

Advertisement

Top token holders dominate governance

The authors also look at who actually votes on key proposals, concluding that top voters are mostly delegates who wield delegated voting power from smaller token holders. 

The top 20 voters in Ampleforth control 96% of delegated voting power, while the top 10 voters in MakerDAO hold 66% of delegated votes, and the top 18 in Uniswap hold 52%. Around one-third of top voters cannot be publicly identified, and among those that can, the largest groups are individuals and Web3 companies, followed by university blockchain societies and venture firms.

Related: DAOs may need to ditch decentralization to court institutions

ECB Working Paper on DeFi: Source: ECB

Cointelegraph reached out to Aave, Uniswap, MakerDAO, and Ampleforth, but had not received a response by publication.

Kavi Jain, senior research associate at Bitwise, told Cointelegraph that many large DeFi protocols were not as decentralized in practice as they might appear, especially in the earlier stages, where a small group still has “meaningful influence over decisions.”

Advertisement

He pointed to the recent Aave governance debate that highlighted how, even with a DAO structure, voting power can “still be concentrated among a few participants.”

MiCA faces DeFi accountability problem

The paper catalogues what governance actually decides, finding that the largest share of proposals relates to “risk parameters” that shape the protocols’ risk profiles. That raises further questions about accountability, especially given that it is “not possible” to tell from public data whether protocol-linked holdings belong to founders, developers or treasuries, or whether exchange wallets are voting their own positions or those of customers.

Related: How a 2.85% price error triggered $27M in liquidations on Aave

There are some caveats with the methodology, and the paper itself warns that it does not capture the “full scope of the DeFi ecosystem,” due to insufficient data.

Advertisement

The paper also stresses that it reflects the authors’ views rather than official ECB policy, however, it warns that the difficulty of reliably identifying who controls major protocols makes it harder to lean on popular entry points such as governance token holders, developers or centralized exchanges, and says that the relevant anchor may differ protocol by protocol and require information that is not publicly available.

Its findings echo earlier warnings from the Financial Stability Board and others, cited in the paper, that DeFi’s promise of disintermediation often masks new forms of concentration and governance risk that resemble, and sometimes amplify, those seen in traditional finance.

Magazine: Ethereum’s Fusaka fork explained for dummies — What the hell is PeerDAS?