
KuCoin faces scrutiny over US$250K theft claims
- Blockchain investigator ZachXBT alleged KuCoin threatened legal action after he linked stolen cryptocurrency to five alleged exchange deposit addresses.
- The claims have not been verified by a court or confirmed by KuCoin, adding to ongoing scrutiny of the exchange's compliance record.
- The dispute follows KuCoin's previous anti-money laundering settlement and its continued efforts to expand regulated operations in Europe.
KuCoin is facing renewed scrutiny after blockchain investigator ZachXBT alleged the exchange sent legal warnings following claims that about US$250,000 stolen through an Atomic stealer attack on 18 August 2025 was routed through five alleged KuCoin deposit addresses.
The allegations have not been confirmed by court filings or an official statement from KuCoin, but the dispute follows the exchange's previous legal and regulatory challenges over anti-money laundering and know-your-customer compliance.
“False or unlawful statements may lead to legal claims,” said the message attributed to the KuCoin Customer Care and Support Team in a screenshot shared by ZachXBT.
ZachXBT alleged the deposit accounts involved “purchased mule KYC” identities, while another social media user, DNBWIZARD, claimed KuCoin had threatened legal action, although neither allegation has been independently verified.
The dispute comes as KuCoin continues operating under increased regulatory scrutiny, and following the allegations there was no immediate market or share price reaction because KuCoin is a privately held company.
In January 2025, the US Department of Justice said KuCoin pleaded guilty to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and agreed to pay more than US$297 million in penalties after prosecutors alleged the exchange failed to maintain effective anti-money laundering and know-your-customer controls.
KuCoin later obtained a Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) licence in Austria through its European subsidiary, although Austria's regulator subsequently restricted the subsidiary from onboarding new customers, citing compliance staffing issues.