Shocking Bitcoin Theft Case: Manhattan Judge Grants $1 Million Bail, Bans Crypto Payments

A dramatic turn in a violent Bitcoin theft case has gripped the crypto community, as a Manhattan judge granted $1 million bail to two men accused of a horrific kidnapping and torture scheme. What’s even more striking? The explicit ban on using any cryptocurrency for the bail payment, signaling a stern stance against digital assets crime. This ruling highlights the ongoing challenges courts face in adjudicating crimes that intersect physical violence and the digital world of finance.

Unpacking the Allegations of Violent Bitcoin Theft

In a case that reads like a thriller, John Woeltz and William Duplessie stand accused of orchestrating a brutal crypto theft scheme. Arrested in May, they allegedly lured an Italian cryptocurrency trader to a SoHo townhouse under threats to his family. Prosecutors described a harrowing ordeal, including claims that the men set the victim on fire, used a chainsaw to inflict wounds, and pistol-whipped him. The motive? To extract access to his valuable digital assets.

Assistant District Attorney Sarah Kahn presented graphic details, including a photo of the victim reportedly engulfed in flames. Disturbingly, prosecutors also referenced a Kentucky property linked to Woeltz, dubbed the “crypto king of Kentucky,” where investigators reportedly found writings about kidnapping and torturing individuals for crypto theft. This adds a chilling layer to the accusations, painting a picture of calculated malice aimed at exploiting the lucrative world of digital currencies.

Why Did the Manhattan Judge Grant Bail?

Despite the severity of the charges—kidnapping, assault, and coercion—Manhattan Judge Gregory Carro made the surprising decision to grant $1 million bail. This ruling, issued during a late July 2025 hearing, came with strict conditions: passport surrender, electronic ankle monitoring, and home confinement. Judge Carro’s decision stemmed from his questioning of the prosecution’s evidence and the defense’s counter-arguments.

The defense attorneys highlighted inconsistencies between the Manhattan District Attorney’s allegations and their own video evidence. Surveillance footage reportedly showed the victim smoking a cigarette on a street 36 hours before leaving the townhouse, casting doubt on claims of prolonged captivity and the victim’s overall credibility. The judge emphasized that the prosecution had not demonstrated a flight risk, a critical factor in bail determinations, and noted the defendants’ lack of prior criminal history as grounds for leniency, despite the gravity of the alleged crimes.

The Unprecedented Crypto Bail Restriction

One of the most significant aspects of this ruling is the explicit prohibition on using cryptocurrency for bail payments. This condition, noted in court records, aligns with broader regulatory efforts to curtail crypto-linked crimes. Digital currencies, with their perceived anonymity, often complicate the tracing of illicit transactions, making them attractive to criminals. The court’s decision sends a clear message: the legal system is adapting to the unique challenges posed by digital assets.

Legal analysts interpret this restriction as a deliberate measure to prevent money laundering and ensure transparency in financial transactions related to legal proceedings. The move underscores the growing scrutiny over how digital assets are used, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. This ruling sets a precedent for how courts may handle bail in future cases where digital currencies are involved, emphasizing traditional, traceable payment methods.

The Growing Threat of Digital Assets Crime

This case serves as a stark reminder of the escalating trend of digital assets crime globally. Victims are increasingly targeted for private key access, highlighting significant vulnerabilities in how digital wealth is secured. The exact value of the stolen digital assets in this case remains undisclosed, but the incident contributes to a worrying pattern.

According to Chainalysis, a leading blockchain analysis firm, a staggering $2.17 billion was stolen from crypto services in 2025 alone. This figure already surpasses the $1.87 billion lost in all of 2024, indicating a rapid acceleration in crypto-related criminal activity. The rise in such incidents underscores the critical need for enhanced crypto security measures, both for individual users and for platforms handling digital assets. Users must remain vigilant and adopt robust security practices to protect their investments.

Ensuring Robust Crypto Security: What Can You Do?

While this case highlights the extreme dangers of physical coercion for crypto, it also reinforces the broader need for strong security practices. Protecting your digital assets goes beyond just avoiding scams; it involves proactive measures against various threats. Here are key takeaways for safeguarding your crypto:

• Use Hardware Wallets: For significant holdings, hardware wallets offer superior security by keeping your private keys offline.
• Strong, Unique Passwords: Never reuse passwords, and always use complex combinations for your crypto accounts.
• Enable Two-Factor Authentication (2FA): This adds an extra layer of security, making it harder for unauthorized access.
• Be Wary of Phishing Attempts: Always verify the legitimacy of websites and communications before entering credentials.
• Educate Yourself: Stay informed about common crypto scams and security vulnerabilities.
• Secure Your Seed Phrase: This is your ultimate backup. Store it offline, in multiple secure locations, and never share it.

The defendants’ not-guilty pleas and the defense’s emphasis on procedural inconsistencies have sparked debate about the evidentiary standards for prosecuting violent crimes tied to digital assets. As courts navigate these legal and technical challenges, the outcome of this case could significantly influence future legal precedents involving crypto theft and digital asset regulation.

This Manhattan bail decision is more than just a legal development; it’s a critical moment for the cryptocurrency world, pushing conversations about security, regulation, and the very nature of digital ownership to the forefront. As the digital asset landscape continues to evolve, so too must the legal frameworks designed to protect its participants.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What are the charges against John Woeltz and William Duplessie?

The two men are accused of kidnapping, assault, and coercion in connection with a violent crypto theft scheme involving the alleged torture of an Italian national to gain access to his digital assets.

Why did the Manhattan judge grant $1 million bail despite the severe allegations?

Judge Gregory Carro questioned the prosecution’s evidence, citing inconsistencies between allegations and defense video evidence that suggested the victim’s account lacked credibility. The judge also noted the defendants’ lack of criminal history and that they were not deemed a flight risk.

Why were cryptocurrency payments for bail explicitly prohibited in this case?

The prohibition on crypto payments for bail aligns with broader regulatory efforts to curtail crypto-linked crimes. Digital currencies’ anonymity can complicate tracing illicit transactions, and this measure is seen as a deliberate step to prevent money laundering and ensure transparency.

What does this case highlight about cryptocurrency security?

The case underscores significant vulnerabilities in cryptocurrency’s security model, as victims are increasingly targeted for private key access through violent means. It emphasizes the critical need for individuals to adopt robust crypto security measures, such as hardware wallets and strong authentication.

How common are crypto-related crimes like this one?

Crypto-related crimes are on the rise globally. Chainalysis reported $2.17 billion stolen from crypto services in 2025 alone, exceeding the $1.87 billion lost in all of 2024, indicating a growing trend of digital assets crime.