When the Department of Justice issued its press release about my sentencing, it painted a picture of me as someone who knowingly laundered money for criminals and romance scammers. That’s not just misleading—it’s false. And because the press release will live online forever, I want the truth to live alongside it.
I was sentenced to six years in federal prison for operating a peer-to-peer Bitcoin exchange without registering with FinCEN, and for one count of money laundering tied to cash I received from someone who later admitted to being a drug dealer. But the story behind those charges—what was left out—tells a very different truth.
Let’s start with the so-called “victims” in the DOJ’s narrative.
The Romance Scam Accusations
There were three women named at trial. The government used their stories to frame me as someone who profited from romance scams. But here’s the truth:
AD claimed to be a nurse. She provided her driver’s license, told me she was investing in Bitcoin for her future, and even requested to use the privacy app Signal—something I never used with her. I asked questions, collected her ID, and did my best to vet her like I did with every customer. Later, the government approached her and told her that unless she testified against me, she could face charges of money laundering herself. That’s not justice—that’s pressure.
JL was from Connecticut. She reached out to me looking to buy Bitcoin and told me she was a teacher. She provided her identification and assured me all her funds were legitimate and that she was acting independently. I had no idea that she was involved with another man behind her husband’s back or that she would later be described as a scam victim. She never told me anything like that. None of her communications raised red flags.
CM, the third woman, ran her own business as a tax professional and operated a software company. She was a verified trader on Paxful, meaning she had gone through a platform-level identity verification process. I had no reason to suspect her of being part of any scam. Just like the others, she presented herself as a legitimate professional, and nothing she told me suggested otherwise.
It turns out that all three were involved in situations I had no knowledge of—and even they didn’t know they were being scammed until federal agents told them. None of the banks they used flagged the transactions. None of the ATMs they used stopped them. But somehow, I was supposed to know what no one else did.
We filed multiple motions to exclude these individuals from being referred to as “victims of my fraud,” because they weren’t. I wasn’t involved in the schemes that targeted them. I simply provided a service they requested, like many other Bitcoin traders in this emerging market.
Scam Detection and Rejection Protocol
Unlike what the DOJ implied, I had fraud prevention protocols in place. One of them required customers sending cash to include a handwritten note stating they were buying Bitcoin for personal use and that no third party was involved.
In two separate cases, that note was missing. That raised a red flag. I followed up, did my own investigation, and learned that the actual sender in one case was an elderly woman who had no idea she was buying Bitcoin. As soon as I realized something was wrong, I returned the funds and refused to complete the transaction. That’s not criminal intent—that’s moral responsibility.
The government had this evidence. They had the chat logs. They knew I was actively trying to prevent fraud—and still chose to bury that truth.
The Drug Dealer Setup: A Manufactured Story
The government’s money laundering charge was built around the testimony of a cooperating witness who was already serving a 10-year sentence for drug trafficking. I didn’t know him as a drug dealer. When we met, he told me he was a chef and a poker player who was going through a divorce. I verified his identity by checking his driver’s license and even looked him up on Facebook—where I saw pictures of his kids and ex-wife. There was nothing suspicious or criminal about his presentation.
All of our trades went smoothly. No red flags. No strange behavior. Nothing that would have led me—or any reasonable person—to suspect criminal activity.
Then the government got involved. That’s when the bizarre storytelling started.
In his first jailhouse interview with federal agents, he claimed that he flashed a gun at me during our first meeting, and I responded with, “Is everything going to be cool?” According to that version, I just continued doing business with someone who pulled a gun on me. That’s not just unbelievable—it’s laughable. No one in their right mind continues doing business like that.
Later, at trial, the story changed again. This time, he said he had a gun but wasn’t sure if I saw it. Then, according to his third version, during our fifth meeting, he suddenly “blurted out” that he was a meth trafficker—but only because he didn’t want me to think he was a thief. And apparently, I said nothing and kept doing business with him.
It’s a completely fabricated narrative that changed multiple times depending on who he was talking to and what the government needed to hear. He had every incentive to lie. He admitted on the stand that he was cooperating to get a lighter sentence and go home.
What I knew was that I was dealing with someone who presented a clean profile and had verified credentials. The rest of the story was created later, under pressure, by someone looking for a deal.
The Charge I Was Acquitted Of: A Setup That Failed
Another major detail the DOJ press release conveniently left out is that I was acquitted of a second money laundering charge—because the jury saw through what was clearly an orchestrated setup. Over the course of five or six staged transactions, two undercover federal agents approached me using fake identities and fabricated stories, trying to bait me into committing crimes I had no intention of engaging in.
One of the agents even told me he was delivering Adderall to casinos. I remember thinking, What is this guy even talking about? It made no sense, and the behavior was bizarre. I immediately stopped engaging with him and cut off contact. He kept calling me, trying to keep me on the hook, but I refused to respond. That should have said everything about my intent—but the government still tried to use it against me.
Thankfully, the jury saw through it. They recognized I wasn’t trying to launder money or help criminals. I was trying to stay away from trouble—and did. The government tried to create a crime where there wasn’t one, and the jury rejected it.
FinCEN Registration and Expert Witness Denied
The narrative that I was “unlicensed” or “willfully unregistered” is also misleading. I took steps to register with FinCEN through an entity called Digital Assets LLC. I followed what I understood were the rules, based on the guidance provided by training programs l purchased to learn how to operate in the space which advised me to register.
At trial, we attempted to bring in an expert witness to explain the complexity of FinCEN regulations and how registration requirements were—and still are—widely misunderstood. The Court denied our expert witness motion. The expert witness was a 28 year retired FBI agent who was part of Coin Base’s compliance team at one point, but apparently he did have qualifications to testify. That decision left the jury with no independent explanation of what constitutes lawful operation in the context of peer-to-peer Bitcoin exchanges.
Meanwhile, the DOJ itself has since issued updated guidance (the Blanche Memo), admitting that it will no longer prosecute these cases unless the defendant knowingly and willfully violated the law. That policy shift came after my trial—but it speaks volumes about how the law was being applied at the time.
Why I’m Writing This
I’m not writing this to avoid responsibility. I accept the consequences for what I didn’t know, and for what I should have done better. But I won’t accept being cast as a willing criminal when I was doing my best to operate in a system that even the government now admits was unclear.
If someone was harmed by my actions, even unintentionally, that bothers me. It probably always will. But I never set out to harm anyone. My intent was to run a lawful business and do right by my family and clients.
So when people search my name and find the DOJ’s press release, I want them to find this entry too. This is the truth—told by the person who lived it.
—Trung Nguyen
