Home > Business > Industry

Was there even a crime here? Bithumb mulls legal options to recover Bitcoin after $40B blunder.

Published: 09 Feb. 2026, 19:13 Updated: 09 Feb. 2026, 19:20

A pedestrian passes by the Bithumb Lounge in Gangnam District, southern Seoul, on Feb. 9. [YONHAP]

Bithumb mistakenly issued a total of $40 billion in Bitcoin payouts to users. The problem now is: Can Korea's second-largest cryptocurrency exchange press criminal charges or file civil suits against users who happened upon the wrongly received windfall and force them to return assets that remain unrecovered?

Of the 620,000 Bitcoin mistakenly issued to 249 users, 618,212 — or 99.7 percent — were recovered before they could be sold or transferred. Even of the 1,788 Bitcoins that were sold or transferred, the exchange recovered 93 percent of them, leaving about 126 tokens — worth roughly 13 billion won ($8.9 million) in the wind as of Saturday.

Bithumb has begun contacting recipients individually to retrieve the assets. The company is considering legal action if recovery proves difficult, but questions remain about whether it is actually possible.

From a legal perspective, recovery appears possible through civil proceedings. The mistaken Bitcoin payout can be viewed as an erroneous transfer, and legal experts say Bithumb would likely win a lawsuit seeking restitution for unjust enrichment. Because Bithumb had specified event prizes ranging from 2,000 won to 50,000 won, it is easier to prove that the amount received — 100 million times the announced prize sum — was illicit.

“Any monetary gain without legal grounds constitutes unjust enrichment,” said Kim Sang-gyun, a lawyer at law firm J&K. “Given that Bitcoin worth hundreds of billions or even trillions of won are clearly not event prizes, the funds must be returned under civil law.”

Some say that withdrawing the wrongly issued tokens in cash could even lead to criminal charges.

Although the Bitcoin were paid due to Bithumb’s mistake, selling or cashing them out could still raise criminal liability issues, as seen in the Samsung Securities’ 2018 “ghost shares” incident, in which the firm mistakenly distributed 1,000 shares instead of a 1,000-won dividend per share to employee stockholders.

Seven current and former Samsung Securities employees who sold those ghost shares were later convicted under the Capital Markets Act and for breach of trust, receiving suspended prison terms and fines.

The Bithumb company logo is seen as a pedestrian walks by the Bithumb Lounge in Gangnam District, southern Seoul, on Feb. 9. [NEWS1]

However, there is also a Supreme Court precedent holding that there is no criminal liability for disposing of mistakenly transferred Bitcoin.

In 2021, the Supreme Court acquitted a person who had been indicted for transferring 1.4 billion won worth of mistakenly issued Bitcoin to another personal account. While using money mistakenly deposited into a bank account can constitute embezzlement, the court ruled that cryptocurrencies, unlike bank deposits, do not qualify as “property” under the Criminal Act.

“Existing precedent holds that cryptocurrency is not property in the sense required for embezzlement,” said Han Sang-jun, a lawyer at law firm Daegun. “Apart from the fact that unjust enrichment can be recovered through civil litigation, criminal punishment may prove difficult. But because the property value of cryptocurrencies has been increasingly recognized since the 2021 ruling, the issue could be reconsidered."

Some legal experts argue that breach of trust, rather than embezzlement, could still apply.

When someone receives another person’s assets without justification, the gain constitutes unjust enrichment. And under the principle of good faith, there is a duty to preserve the assets until they are returned. The Supreme Court declined to recognize breach of trust in the 2021 case involving the mistaken Bitcoin transfer largely because, unlike bank accounts, it was difficult to identify the sender and recipient, per the nature of cryptocurrencies, making it hard to establish a trust relationship.

“Breach of trust can apply more broadly than embezzlement because it covers the acquisition of financial benefits rather than physical property,” said Kim Ga-ram, a lawyer at law firm Good Plan. “There have been acquittals in cases involving Bitcoin sent by mistake from unknown parties, but this case involves a mistaken transfer between Bithumb and its users, where a trust relationship can be recognized, making arbitrary disposal potentially problematic.”

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
BY JEONG JIN-HO, KIM DA-YOUNG [[email protected]]