Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

Cryptocurrency as a Cover: How Seven People from Dnipro Extorted "Debts" That Legally Didn't Exist for Two Years

A group from Dnipropetrovsk region issued hryvnia microloans disguised as crypto credits through the BitCapital service, which was banned by the National Bank of Ukraine, and extorted money through threats. Officially there are 700 victims, but lawyers say there are thousands.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 17, 2026 · 2 min read

Cryptocurrency as a Cover: How Seven People from Dnipro Extorted "Debts" That Legally Didn't Exist for Two Years
Фото: Київська міська прокуратура

In Holosiivskyi district of Kyiv, seven residents of Dnipropetrovsk region were detained. Formally — organizers of a bot farm. In reality — participants in a scheme that operated for two years in a legal gray zone: it issued loans that the NBU recognized as illegal and demanded debts that, from a legal standpoint, did not exist.

Crypto as legal camouflage

The scheme was organized by a 34-year-old Dnipro resident. The group operated at least since 2023 through the BitCapital web service. Formally, loans were issued in Tether (USDT) — a cryptocurrency pegged to the dollar. However, as the National Bank of Ukraine established in February 2025, behind the cryptocurrency shell was ordinary hryvnia microcredit — without a license, without regulated interest rates, outside any consumer protection.

"The BitCapital service, formally providing loans in USDT, actually issued credits in Ukraine's national currency — hryvnia, bypassing all regulatory mechanisms established by law"

National Bank of Ukraine, February 2025

After the NBU's warning, the service did not cease operations. According to the investigation, the group continued its activities until February 2026.

How debt collection worked

After receiving a loan, the borrower found themselves trapped in unregulated interest rates and hidden fees. Then came collector pressure: threats, calls to relatives and colleagues. Among the victims, according to anti-collector lawyers, were military personnel — they were denied benefits and debts were collected in an aggressive manner.

The NBU officially recorded 700 victims. However, lawyers who handled cases against BitCapital insist: the actual number of victims is in the thousands. Most people did not complain because they either did not know their rights or feared publicity.

Seven suspects — and an open question about the platform

Seven people were served suspicion notices. They are charged with illegal lending and extortion. The group's organizer — faces a separate suspicion as the head of a criminal organization.

  • Computer equipment, phones, and documentation were seized
  • The suspects were in Kyiv, although registered in Dnipropetrovsk region
  • The BitCapital web service was still accessible online at the time of arrests

The last point is key. Detaining perpetrators does not mean shutting down the tool. As long as BitCapital or its clones are accessible online, the next group willing to operate could launch an identical scheme within weeks — the NBU warned, police detained people, but the question for the domain registrar and hosting provider remains without a public answer.

If the Cyber Police does not block the service's technical infrastructure alongside the criminal proceedings — how much time will pass before "BitCapital 2.0" appears?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026