South Korean police have reportedly referred 18 Polymarket users to prosecutors in an illegal gambling investigation involving 26 people who collectively wagered about 17.6 billion won (worth $12.7 million). 

According to Asia Economy, data submitted by the National Police Agency to the office of Democratic Party lawmaker Yoon Kun-young showed that the Gangwon Provincial Police Agency had placed 26 people under investigation as of Tuesday and sent 18 of them to prosecutors. The report said the largest amount wagered by a single user was about 5.7 billion won ($4.1 million).

Police identified users by analyzing publicly available blockchain transactions, the report said. Polymarket lets users buy and sell contracts tied to the outcomes of real-world events and operates on a noncustodial, peer-to-peer structure with automated settlement. It does not maintain a conventional list of users by their real names, the report said. 

Authorities reportedly said Polymarket transactions constitute illegal gambling under South Korea’s Criminal Act because users stake assets on outcomes that cannot be predicted with certainty. The users argued that Polymarket should instead be treated as a crypto-based derivatives investment market, according to the report.

South Korea moves against Polymarket

In June, Gangwon police launched South Korea’s first illegal gambling probe into local Polymarket users at the request of the National Police Agency. On Aug. 18, South Korean authorities moved to block Polymarket after determining that the prediction market provided an illegal gambling environment to users in the country. 

The country’s media and communications review commission said the platform’s winner-takes-all structure encouraged speculative gambling, citing Polymarket’s role in operating markets, setting trading rules, providing crypto deposits, withdrawals, and settlement and collecting transaction fees. 

Related: CFTC, US soldier accused of illegal Polymarket bet spar over interpretation of prediction markets

Polymarket argued that it did not provide Korean-language services or support payments in Korean won and that its noncustodial transactions and use of smart contracts meant it did not directly manage user funds. The commission rejected the argument, saying technical characteristics did not exempt a service from South Korean law.

Tae-Lim Kim, managing attorney at AXIS Law, told Asia Economy that the transactions could meet the legal requirements for gambling. He said describing them as prediction derivatives would be difficult to use as a direct defense in criminal proceedings, although the ability to trade contracts and exit positions before settlement could be relevant to a court’s assessment.

Magazine: Revolut ID thefts highlight KYC’s dangers: Here’s how to fix it

Z.ai forecast

H100 CEO Eirik Grøttum has increased his exposure to the Swedish Bitcoin treasury company through purchases totaling 407,163 shares for SEK 621,887, while H100 continues to report 3,506.4 BTC on its balance sheet.

H100 Group said in its Sept. 17 primary-insider disclosure that Kode Oslo AS carried out the purchases, with 405,663 shares acquired on Sept. 15 at an average SEK 1.53 and another 1,500 shares acquired on Aug. 19 at SEK 1.40. The combined average price was SEK 1.53 per share.

H100 CEO purchase lifts related holdings above 5.3 million

Kode Oslo now owns 2,771,787 H100 shares following the disclosed transactions. Grøttum serves on Kode Oslo’s board, owns 20% of the company and participates in its investment decisions, according to H100’s regulated notice.

A second associated entity, Olav Grøttum Holding AS, owns another 2,627,677 H100 shares. Grøttum owns that company entirely. Combined, the two businesses hold 5,399,464 H100 shares after the latest purchases.

The transaction concerns shares in H100 Group, not a new Bitcoin purchase by the company. H100’s disclosed Bitcoin position therefore remains separate from the CEO-related equity purchase.

Grøttum became H100’s chief executive on Aug. 11, one day after the company completed its large Norwegian Bitcoin-related acquisition. He previously served as CEO of Moonshot AS and had worked with H100 Chief Investment Officer Peter C. Warren managing Bitcoin holdings belonging to Geir Harald Hansen through Moonshot.

H100 said Grøttum’s background covers software development, quantitative trading, asset management and fintech. His appointment moved former CEO Johannes Wiik back into the chief operating officer role.

H100 still reports a 3,506.4 BTC treasury

H100’s latest company disclosures continue to place its treasury at 3,506.4 BTC. The position increased sharply on Aug. 10 when H100 completed its acquisition of NSD AS, which through a reorganization held Moonshot AS and PDI AS.

The transaction brought 2,455.37 BTC into the group, taking H100 from 1,051.03 BTC at the end of June to 3,506.4 BTC. H100 said the acquired companies had no outstanding financial debt.

No cash was paid for that acquisition. H100 issued 790,534,666 new shares to the sellers at SEK 1.86 each, representing consideration of approximately SEK 1.47 billion. The new shares increased H100’s outstanding share count to 1,128,931,358 immediately after the transaction.

The share issue represented roughly 70% of H100’s outstanding shares after closing. Geir Harald Hansen received a controlling position of approximately 69.2% through 781,676,551 shares following the deal, according to H100’s interim report.

H100 described the transaction as “the largest M&A transaction ever completed in the European Public Bitcoin Equity sector” and the first public-market acquisition completed on a Bitcoin-for-Bitcoin basis. Those descriptions are company claims and were not independently established across all European and global public-market transactions.

As crypto.news previously reported, the agreed valuation used Bitcoin at SEK 598,926.69, roughly $62,900, based on the Coinbase BTC/SEK spot price at the specified July 31 reference time. The figure was an acquisition valuation benchmark, not an open-market purchase price for 2,455.37 BTC.

Bitcoin exposure has become central to H100’s balance sheet

H100 began its Bitcoin treasury strategy on a much smaller scale. Its first purchase in May 2025 involved 4.39 BTC, after which the company raised equity and convertible financing to build its holdings.

By June 30, 2026, the company held 1,051.03 BTC before the Norwegian acquisition nearly tripled that amount. H100 describes itself as a technology company serving health and longevity providers while running an active Bitcoin treasury strategy.

The Bitcoin exposure has made H100’s reported earnings sensitive to cryptocurrency prices. Its second-quarter report showed an operating loss of SEK 88.7 million and a pre-tax loss of SEK 98.2 million. H100 said SEK 93.3 million of the pre-tax loss consisted of items that did not affect cash flow.

For the first half of 2026, the company reported a SEK 253.6 million pre-tax loss, while operating cash flow was negative SEK 12.7 million. Its equity ratio stood at 86% at June 30.

As crypto.news reported after the results, much of the quarterly accounting loss was linked to a non-cash write-down associated with Bitcoin’s lower valuation during the reporting period.

Grøttum wrote in the interim report that simply raising funds to accumulate Bitcoin was “unlikely to be sufficient on its own” for treasury companies. He said H100 planned to use capital allocation, capital-markets activity, acquisitions and operating cash flow alongside its Bitcoin holdings. The statement describes management’s strategy and does not guarantee future returns.

H100 is considering future share buybacks

The insider purchase follows a separate H100 announcement on Sept. 16 concerning new Swedish share-repurchase rules. Starting Dec. 5, Swedish public companies whose shares trade on multilateral trading facilities will be permitted to repurchase and hold their own shares. The change covers NGM Nordic SME, where H100 trades.

Grøttum said repurchases could become one of several capital-allocation options, particularly when H100 shares trade below net asset value. His comments describe a potential future tool, not an announced repurchase program.

H100 explicitly said no decision has been taken to repurchase its own shares. Any future program would require authorization from shareholders followed by a board resolution and disclosure under the applicable rules. The company’s Sept. 17 insider filing did not announce a change to its Bitcoin treasury, leaving the latest disclosed balance at 3,506.4 BTC.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority has targeted three London premises suspected of running illegal peer to peer crypto trading businesses, extending an enforcement campaign against unregistered digital asset activity.

According to the FCA, the operation was carried out on Sept. 10 alongside HM Revenue & Customs and the Metropolitan Police Service. Cease and desist letters were issued at all three locations, requiring traders to stop any suspected illegal crypto business.

Peer to peer crypto trading involves people buying and selling digital assets directly with one another. Personal transactions do not require FCA registration, but anyone conducting the activity by way of business in the UK must have the appropriate registration. No peer to peer crypto trading businesses are currently registered with the regulator.

The FCA said unregistered operators can provide a route for criminals to move and launder illicit funds because businesses operating outside its registration system avoid controls designed to detect and prevent money laundering.

“Working with partners, we continue to track and disrupt illegal crypto activity,” Steve Smart, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said. “Anyone running an unregistered peer-to-peer crypto business should assume we are looking at them.”

FCA expands crackdown on illegal peer to peer crypto trading

The latest operation extends enforcement activity that began earlier this year. In April, the FCA and partner agencies targeted eight London locations suspected of hosting unregistered peer to peer crypto businesses, crypto.news previously reported.

During the April 22 operation, the FCA worked with HMRC and the South West Regional Organised Crime Unit. Cease and desist letters were issued at all eight locations, while evidence collected during the inspections was retained for criminal investigations.

The regulator said evidence gathered during that operation is now being used to support ongoing criminal investigations and other enforcement action. Like the September action, the earlier inspections were conducted under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017.

FCA officials have focused their enforcement efforts on businesses conducting crypto activity without the registration required under the existing anti money laundering framework. The regulator has been responsible for supervising relevant UK crypto businesses for compliance with anti money laundering and counter terrorist financing requirements since 2020.

Detective Sergeant Sathish Alalasundaram of the Metropolitan Police Service said investigators face challenges because cryptocurrencies allow funds to move rapidly across jurisdictions.

“Law enforcement and partner agencies are working significantly hard to tackle criminal activity involving digital assets,” Alalasundaram said. “The complex nature of cryptocurrency, combined with the speed at which funds can be moved across jurisdictions, presents ongoing challenges for those investigating.”

He said the Metropolitan Police continues to adapt its investigative capabilities and disruption methods as criminals change how they use digital assets.

FCA has previously pursued unregistered crypto businesses

The London operations follow several enforcement cases involving crypto businesses operating without FCA registration.

One of the regulator’s earlier cases involved Olumide Osunkoya, who pleaded guilty in September 2024 to offenses linked to an illegal crypto ATM network that processed £2.6 million in transactions between December 2021 and September 2023.

Osunkoya admitted operating crypto ATMs without the required registration, along with offenses involving false documents and criminal property. He was later sentenced to four years in prison, becoming the first person in the UK to receive a criminal sentence for unregistered crypto activity.

Separate enforcement action in June 2024 resulted in two London residents being arrested on suspicion of operating an illegal crypto exchange. Authorities believed more than £1 billion in unregistered cryptoassets had been bought and sold through the business.

The FCA inspected offices connected to the suspects, while Metropolitan Police officers searched two residential properties and seized several digital devices. Both individuals were interviewed under caution and released on bail while the investigation continued.

Enforcement continued in July 2025 when the FCA and Metropolitan Police searched four premises in southwest London. Seven crypto ATMs were seized and two people were arrested on suspicion of money laundering and operating an illegal cryptoasset exchange.

UK cryptoasset businesses providing services covered by the existing Money Laundering Regulations must register with the FCA and comply with applicable financial crime controls. Operating covered services by way of business without the required registration can lead to enforcement action.

UK crypto oversight will expand in October 2027

The Sept. 10 operation comes shortly before the FCA opens applications for the UK’s incoming crypto authorization framework.

Under final FCA guidance published on Sept. 16, applications for the new regime will open on Sept. 30, 2026. Firms seeking transitional arrangements must apply by Feb. 28, 2027, before the framework becomes mandatory on Oct. 25, 2027.

The incoming system will expand FCA oversight beyond the anti money laundering and financial promotion requirements that currently apply to much of the sector. Activities covered by the new framework include operating cryptoasset trading platforms, safeguarding cryptoassets, dealing and arranging transactions, issuing qualifying stablecoins and arranging cryptoasset staking.

Existing registration under the Money Laundering Regulations will not automatically convert into authorization under the new system. Companies already registered with the FCA will need to assess their activities and seek the relevant permissions if they intend to continue providing regulated services after the new rules take effect.

The regulator finalized key crypto rules in June covering financial resilience, market integrity, stablecoins and consumer requirements. Firms supporting customers who buy, trade or hold crypto will face standards including capital requirements and stress testing, while market integrity provisions will cover conduct such as insider trading and market manipulation.

Until Oct. 25, 2027, crypto remains largely outside the UK’s full financial services regulatory framework apart from areas including anti money laundering requirements and financial promotions. The FCA advises consumers to use its Firm Checker to establish whether a crypto business has the required registration or permissions before dealing with it.

Revolut said Thursday it had received no direct contact from those claiming responsibility for a customer data breach despite multiple public ransom demands.

A group calling itself “IAmNotAVillain” publicly demanded 6,000 Monero (XMR), worth about $3 million, from Revolut within 24 hours, threatening to sell the customer records to other criminal groups, the Financial Times reported Wednesday.

“Revolut has not received any direct contact or demand from the individuals or group making these claims,” a Revolut spokesperson told Cointelegraph.

The public ultimatum is the latest development in a data breach Revolut first disclosed last week, with Italian authorities now widening their investigation into how a government email account was allegedly used to obtain customer data.

One breach, multiple ransom demands

Revolut’s claim that it has received no direct contact adds to uncertainty over who is behind the public ransom demand, as “IAmNotAVillain” is not the only name linked to claims of responsibility for the incident. Its website, iamnotavillain.xyz, was unavailable when checked by Cointelegraph at the time of publication.

An earlier group calling itself “Revolut Smilik” reportedly demanded 10,000 Bitcoin, worth about $780 million at the time, vastly more than IAmNotAVillain’s current $3 million Monero demand.

IAmNotAVillain disputed the competing claim in a notice on its website, alleging that a former associate had received only a small sample of the data before taking credit for the breach. The site warned others not to deal with the rival claimant.

Cybersecurity-focused account Dark Web Informer also flagged another website, revoloot.lol, associated with a separate actor claiming responsibility, further complicating efforts to establish who controls the stolen customer records. The revoloot.lol website was also unavailable when checked by Cointelegraph.

Italian authorities widen Revolut data breach probe

Italy’s National Anti-Mafia and Anti-Terrorism Directorate is also now involved because the suspected intrusion concerns a government entity, Italian news agency ANSA reported Wednesday.

Related: Italy investigates government email breach linked to Revolut data leak

Prosecutors in Reggio Calabria have opened an investigation into unauthorized access to a computer system of public interest, while investigators work to establish whether the institutional email account was breached or cloned.

Italy’s privacy regulator has separately asked banks to urgently review the security of their access systems and is examining whether other banks or financial institutions may have been involved.

Magazine: Revolut ID thefts highlight KYC’s dangers: Here’s how to fix it

A New York federal judge has denied Susquehanna’s bid to freeze nearly $100 million tied to dozens of traders accused of profiting from alleged insider information before China announced a crackdown on cross border trading platforms.

According to a Sept. 14 opinion and order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Arun Subramanian found that Susquehanna Securities and Susquehanna Investment Group had not shown they were likely to suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction.

Susquehanna filed the lawsuit on June 29 against 100 unnamed defendants, alleging violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and unjust enrichment. Citadel Securities later joined the case as an intervenor.

The dispute centers on trading before a May 22 announcement concerning the Chinese government’s crackdown on cross border trading platforms. Susquehanna alleged that the defendants traded using material nonpublic information before the news caused a sharp decline in certain securities.

The market maker initially targeted 100 defendants but narrowed its request for a preliminary injunction to 40. It asked the court to prevent them from transferring, encumbering, removing or otherwise disposing of proceeds held at third party brokerage firms that Susquehanna claimed came from insider trading.

As an alternative, the company sought an attachment order that would allow assets to be seized to secure a potential judgment.

Susquehanna failed to show an imminent risk to the funds

Subramanian found that Susquehanna had not produced enough evidence to establish that the defendants were likely to dissipate or conceal their assets before a judgment could be enforced.

Susquehanna argued that the defendants’ allegedly suspicious trading created a significant risk that the proceeds could be moved beyond the court’s reach. The judge rejected the argument, finding that accepting it would effectively allow asset freezes as a matter of course in many insider trading or fraud cases.

The court separately considered defendants living in the United States, foreign defendants who had appeared in the case and foreign defendants who had not appeared.

For domestic defendants, Susquehanna pointed to their failure to appear as part of its argument that the funds could be dissipated. The court found no evidence showing that their absence meant they intended to frustrate enforcement of a future judgment, noting that some apparently had not yet been formally served.

Susquehanna raised a similar concern over defendants living outside the United States, arguing that their assets could be moved beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Subramanian found that the possible difficulty of enforcing a judgment overseas was not enough by itself to establish irreparable harm.

The company did not identify a pattern of defendants hiding funds, making fraudulent transfers or engaging in evasive conduct, according to the order. Some foreign defendants who had appeared in the case submitted evidence indicating that they had enough funds to satisfy a potential judgment.

Susquehanna came closest to establishing a potential risk when it said in a reply filing that one defendant, identified as John Doe 3, appeared to have removed more than $10 million from a relevant account before a freeze took effect.

The court found that the claim lacked supporting evidence and said moving money from an account did not necessarily show an attempt to avoid a judgment. Funds used for active trading could have been reinvested elsewhere or could have belonged to a fund, employer or client.

Trading patterns did not establish likely insider trading

Susquehanna faced another problem because the court found that it had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims.

To prevail on its Section 20A claim, the company would need to establish that someone owing a fiduciary duty of trust and confidence used material nonpublic information to profit from trading or tipped the confidential information to others.

Susquehanna submitted trading charts that it said showed defendants buying highly risky, short dated put options expiring on or shortly after the May 22 announcement. The company argued that there was no plausible explanation for the pattern other than trading based on material nonpublic information.

One defendant, Zhengfei Li, offered a different explanation. His trading records showed two equally sized positions, with half expiring before May 22 and the remainder afterward.

Li said the pattern was consistent with repeated speculation based on market signals instead of precise knowledge of an announcement. He told the court that unusually heavy put option activity visible through public market information and investor discussions led him to buy his own put options.

Evidence submitted by Li showed a put to call ratio of roughly 49 to 1 on May 21, the day he entered positions expiring after the announcement. Another defendant said she bought put options for similar reasons and submitted messages showing her reaction when the Chinese crackdown became public.

The court said defendants could have noticed unusual market volatility or publicly available posts suggesting that negative news was approaching and traded on those signals. Information available publicly would not qualify as nonpublic information under the insider trading claim.

Subramanian noted that some defendants’ trading records appeared more suspicious than Li’s. Susquehanna, however, brought the defendants together in one lawsuit and relied on broad arguments instead of providing detailed individual treatment of each trader.

The judge pointed to the scale of the original case, which accused 100 defendants of receiving insider information even though Susquehanna later stopped seeking a preliminary injunction against more than half of them.

Susquehanna had not identified the alleged tipper, the fiduciary duty that person owed or the personal benefit received for providing the information. The court found that the large number of investors who were not connected to each other could support explanations other than insider trading.

China crackdown triggered the trading dispute

The May 22 regulatory action at the center of the case involved Chinese scrutiny of overseas trading services offered to mainland investors.

crypto.news previously reported that Chinese securities regulators had targeted cross border brokerage activity involving firms including Tiger Brokers, Futu and Longbridge. The action concerned companies providing mainland clients access to overseas markets without regulatory approval.

China had already tightened restrictions on crypto and real world asset tokenization in February, extending restrictions to offshore entities serving mainland users and maintaining limits on virtual currency related financial services.

Days after the May 22 development, China’s Supreme People’s Court said judicial authorities would study rules for virtual currency disputes and cases involving cross border financial activity.

Enforcement involving overseas fund movements continued in July, when a Shanghai court sentenced five people over an illegal foreign exchange network that prosecutors said used cryptocurrency to move more than $29.4 million abroad. Authorities said the network helped domestic clients transfer more than 200 million yuan overseas over three years.

Court rejects alternative request to attach assets

Susquehanna’s failure to establish likely success on the merits affected its alternative request for an attachment order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 allows courts to seize property to secure a potential judgment when the remedy is available under the law of the state where the court sits. In New York, a party seeking attachment must show, among other requirements, that it is probable to succeed on the merits.

Susquehanna relied on the same arguments it presented in support of the preliminary injunction. Subramanian found that the company had not demonstrated likely success on either its Section 20A claim or its unjust enrichment claim.

The unjust enrichment allegation was based on the same underlying claim that defendants had engaged in illegal insider trading. The court found that Susquehanna had not clearly shown that the defendants traded using material information unavailable to the market.

Questions remained over the extent of Susquehanna’s losses because the market maker acknowledged using hedging strategies. The court said the record did not establish how much of the defendants’ alleged gains, if any, came at the plaintiffs’ expense.

Subramanian stressed that the ruling did not decide whether Susquehanna had adequately pleaded plausible claims for relief, an issue the court had not yet addressed. The higher standard required to freeze funds totaling just under $100 million had not been met.

The court denied both the preliminary injunction and the alternative attachment request. An earlier order restricting the funds was set to dissolve at 5 p.m. ET on Sept. 16.

What higher Fed rates mean for everyday Americans