Toronto crypto company CEO kidnapped, held for $1M ransom before being released
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
Two things are simultaneously true in Canada right now: 1) the government has become unwilling/unable to actually keep repeat violent offenders in jail (and has totally failed to prevent them from acquiring illegal firearms), and 2) the law essentially outlaws the use of any tools (firearms, pepper spray, knives) for the express purpose of self-defense.
It's functionally impossible to get a concealed carry permit in Canada. They just don't issue them, even if you have a restricted firearms license, even if you're a high-profile individual, and even if there's an immediate threat to your life. You have to rely on police and, if you can afford them, expensive private security who probably can't carry a firearm either. I should note that the kidnappers in this case (plural) were all armed.
The politicians, of course, are protected by the armed Parliamentary Protective Service. They just don't believe you deserve similar protection.
[1] https://thehub.ca/2024/09/21/violent-crime-has-seen-the-most...
So recording might have gotten better/loose or the methodology is super stable and violent crime exactly as it was defined 10 years ago is up.
This seems unlikely, but plausible.
From the article though:
“The top violent crimes in 2023 were assault not using weapons or resulting harm, uttering threats, and assault employing weapons or resulting in harm.”
To me the recording of “uttering threats” pops out as something that would easily change depending on society’s sensitivities.
I am not saying violent crime isn’t up. These are just some thoughts that I wish were addressed in the article. The article doesn’t go into any of the recording methods and possible changes in what is categorised as a certain type of crime that could also impact the stats.
This is such an American take.
> The politicians, of course, are protected by the armed Parliamentary Protective Service. They just don't believe you deserve similar protection.
What are you talking about. A gun is not at all even close to anything regarding trained professional lifeguards. Wtf?
You Imagine you alone with a AR-15 vs 5 terrorists with AK's and you win, right?
Your logic is very flawed. I bet you I know how the robbers got the guns. From their fucking neighbors selling them at Walmart, legally.
More accidents and bad things happen with guns, by a ton, than your imaginary hero self-defense stories.
It is 1. A deterrent and 2. Accidents are just a result of poor training and 3. The amount of defensive gun use is exceptional, it does not get reported on purpose due to state propaganda in Canada, America, and so on.
Also all concealed carry holders regularly train, much of it is for fun, and their skills rival or surpass law enforcement.
I generally disagree with your other bullets points, but this statement is so absurdly inaccurate I feel the need to call it out explicitly. It is absolutely not true that all concealed carry holder fit this description. Not even a majority of the concealed carry holders that I know do. It is, quite honestly, a fantasy.
(I am generally pro-gun rights combined with smart gun restrictions laws)
Instead of training in the legality of use of force, and to hit a target with a bullet, like most CCP holders get, cops get training that everyone is a potential enemy, and to spray and pray first, ask questions later. Considering they're essentially immune to going to prison when this goes poorly, the result is often bad.
and what's worse is it becomes an "arms race" at the individual level. many people end up buying guns because everyone else already have guns (especially criminals), so they feel obligated to acquire guns to defend themselves from other people with guns. it's a vicious cycle.
the ideal solution is to keep the gun supply low all together, meaning your average criminal are much less likely to have guns, which is what most countries do.
not only that, having a massive amount of guns around & having a culture of guns probably directly leads to school shootings.
It does not and I hope you never get into a situation where you have to experience that choice for yourself.
As a note, you don't have individual rights. That is a man made concept. You only have the rights that other humans grant you. There is no universal tablet of morals or rights, inscribed into the fabric of reality.
On top of the homeless craziness everywhere.
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/police-chase-truck-down-i-5...
I'm sure there are more recent examples too
the event you're likely referring to is a cop that pursued without authorization and was reprimanded. this is a good thing, cops should get permission before going on a wild car chase
The poster you responded to was correct until June 2024 and you're correct after June 2024, here are the details (I live in Seattle):
Law passed in 2021 restricted chases to people suspected of:
1-Violent offense
2-Sex offense
3-Domestic violence assault
4-Vehicular assault
5-DUI
6-Escape from prison/jail
That law was rolled back in June of 2024 to allow pursuit if there is reasonable suspicion of violating the law.
The link you provided is from Sep 2024, after the law changed.
[0] https://news.err.ee/1609499827/attempted-abduction-of-austra...
What makes crypto unique in this setting is that it's easy for the kidnappers to receive ransom in a way that's very hard to trace back to them after the fact.
The story of, say, someone successfully kidnapping Bezos in a lightning operation and trying to take a good bite of his wealth is quite different than the same if you kidnapped Satoshi while he has access to his keys. It's not even in the tracing, but how much you can take away successfully, and how fast.
The extremely wealthy like Bezos have contingency plans and systems for this situation.
I’m assuming it wouldn’t be Bezos himself doing it. You would contact his employees and tell them to get you the crypto if they want him back.
Yes. That's the point, the ideal target is one that doesn't have contingency plans, not someone who has crypto.
I don't see how. Unless you're talking about a people who owns a significant percentage of a publicly-traded company, but that's most certainly not "any company owner". Probably less than 1% of the population.
This information is legally required to be available to prevent money laundering, fraud, other financial crimes, etc.
[0] https://ariregister.rik.ee/eng/company/12199449/Foobar-O%C3%...
Ultimate Beneficiar Ownership information can be only accessed by authorities.
e.g. ‘ Toyota Baltic Aktsiaselts (10234087)’ lists 1 senior manager under ‘Beneficial owners’… which is clearly nonsense.
He probably doesn’t even own 50% of the intermediary company registered in Estonia… let alone 100%.
Edit: And ‘SIA Toyota Material Handling Baltic Eesti filiaal (11629379)’ doesn’t list anyone at all in that section.
So it is an example of the information in at least one section being completely unreliable, with not even an attempt of an ‘owned by non-eu parent company’ disclaimer explaining why it’s fine to list a random senior manager as something that he’s clearly not…
Turns out that in a functioning society, it’s not a big deal if someone knows how much money you made last year. Thieves and kidnappers are not lurking around every corner after all.
Money and nudity are still the great taboos for Americans. These national obsessions must be closely guarded or some kind of calamity will consume the sinners who exposed their bodies and bank accounts.
When you're at the bottom in a country that has decent safety nets for you isn't as bad as the US. And once you've done one crime, the rest get easier to justify, I would assume.
"Average" people may not share their wealth in general (in part because they may not want friends and family to know they have a lot of money) but it's no secret that the CEO or SVP of a Fortune 500 company has a ton of money.
Just another example of where crypto thinking they are hip/trendy for breaking the norms. Some lessons of bucking the traditional methods are gonna hurt more than others.
This is actually less true than you assume (barring Monero). Crypto, and Bitcoin especially, is less (less, though not yet completely) of a Wild West due to Western nations enforcing KYC laws. Through this, addresses can be traced back to real people. Further chain analysis (Chainalysis is the name I'm most familiar with) allows investigators to follow the money through an immutible chain stretching back to 2008.
In short, Bitcoin is not private. It is arguably one of the least private ways to transact, considering the Blockchain will show the history of every wallet, and where every Sat started and ended. Unless you take enormous precautions, it can be traced back to you.
Whether the feds can get to you is another story, but one as old as time.
Just knowing he's CEO of a crypto company means he probably has a lot of crypto.
Yes it is tied to you, when you spend it.
Or
> there is a pretty small set of people who can access the information.
Which one is it?
It's almost like the crypto markets attract criminals!
In Munich we have a serious problem with watch-robbers snatching people's expensive watches while driving on a motorcycle. Utterly insane but also utterly profitable if you have channels where to sell stolen watches.
How often is that actually happening?
Also, this seems like it could easily be an insurance scam. It seems just a little insane for someone to be casually walking around with a half million dollar watch on their wrist and some thief just happens to know "Hey, that looks like a half million dollar watch!"
I mean if you can move that watch in a way that doesn't get you caught for 1/4 of it's retail price, twice a year, that's a decent salary. Doesn't need to happen all that much.
I guess what I'm saying is I can understand a lot better how the "kia boyz" thing happened. There are a lot of easily identifiable kias everywhere. But luxury watches just seems so niche that it's hard to think someone stealing them would be a crime wave.
Well, you won't see that happening in a small village. Not enough people wearing expensive watches there. But in large cities with a huge amount of both domestic and foreign rich people it's bound to develop.
As long as you have a good spotter able to determine if someone is wearing a watch worth barely a few hundred dollars (or less, knockoffs are a thing) or a legit 50k upwards luxury watch, it's one of the more profitable ways of criming: no weapons or drugs involved which tends to yield much harder sentencing in most jurisdictions, less chance of bystanders intervening like in a conventional robbery (most people don't even realize what has happened until they see the motorcycle speeding away), less chance of the victim fighting back or attracting help, almost no chance of getting caught on camera, and the stolen goods are innocuous to carry around - unlike with guns or drugs, if you get in a traffic control or whatnot, the chance that the cop will ask about the watch you're wearing is almost zero because your average cop has zero idea if you're wearing a 5000 dollars Rolex or a 50k dollars Rolex.
Often enough. One gang alone took 18 raids in about two years, making about 1.5 million euros [1] - it's about once a month the police actually bother to make a report. Even if one assumes they can get only half the price due to no heritage, 750k for 12 people tax-free, that's more than even experienced developers can net in a year.
> It seems just a little insane for someone to be casually walking around with a half million dollar watch on their wrist and some thief just happens to know "Hey, that looks like a half million dollar watch!"
That's the thing. Munich has a ton of luxury shops for obscenely rich tourists, a good scout is all it needs. Quite some victims actually didn't have insurance.
[1] https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/banden-reissen-in-muenc...
He has apparently at least a 40k+ watch. [1]
[1] https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/luxury/article/3215841/...
... that's the point
Like how Josh could beat SF2 on one quarter.
(I think this is related to how "a million dollars" still sounds impressive because of the change from 6 to 7 digits even though it's not nearly as much money as it used to be. A lot of people have super-dated signifiers for what "really rich" means because of the persistent anchoring of the terms.)
Poor example but we had a sister company VP (but more a reports directly to the owner type roll) in the office from the UK and he keyed in on my watch instantly. Which led him to inquire my background and find out I hadn't always been a lowly IT Director, and he had a lot of conversations you wouldn't normally have with IT and trusted what I said way more than my boss the CFO (I know IT shouldn't be under a CFO), all because he saw my watch. Instant change for my standing in the company. It's lame but it's the world we live in.
A good watch can be a worthwhile investment. I recommend a non-trendy somewhat off name used one. Doesn't even need to be all that much. The one I got to keep is just a TAG and still is enough that they notice. Lawyers have treated me better. Heck even cops notice and treat me better. A good watch and a pair of good shoes (like some nice Italian boots) can make a world of difference in how interactions go. Lots of rich dudes wear Levi's so they aren't a tell you're a normie. But shoes and watch are. Just don't get something that gets dated quick because then you instantly have give them the ick. I've also had random women I've had drinks with straight up ask about it, that gives me the ick, even though I wore it specifically for them to notice, which is again ick. We're funny monkeys.
What you're saying here is factually incorrect, it's actually the most enduring and widespread way to flex wealth, and it has been common to nearly all cultures for thousands and thousands of years.
In fact this behavior is apparently so innate to our existence that it seems to have developed completely independently in isolated societies. Both the Queen of England and the Aztec King had the habit of draping their body in hand-crafted finework jewelry, precious metal, and gems.
The phenomenon is shared by neighborhood drug dealers, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, wealthy Chinese heiresses, and Polynesian village chiefs. And maybe your wife.
At least I am certain my wife doesn't like much jewelry besides our self-made marriage rings (something I can only recommend to do for anyone wishing to get married!) and earrings, and I'm just the same :'D
But still, it is a thing mostly seen in the rich elites - everyone else (outside of rappers and drug dealers) doesn't do it.
These folks expect to be able to resell the object later.
It's a state "founders" town and there's a lot of generational wealth being flexed keeping old stuff running and in use.
It's modern John Deere's etc on the 4,000 acre farms of course, but still driving a "classic" farm truck to town because it was Granddad's first truck and renno'd when it was found at the back of the old barn.
I could be wrong of course; I know a lot more about cars than I do overpriced luxury watches, after all. But I suspect the watches are much more like diamonds: only "valuable" to the initial buyer (and mainly for sentimental reasons), and largely worthless to everyone else. (Yes, a resale market for used Rolexes and the like exists, but you're not going to get the same price for your 20-year-old Rolex as you paid for it.)
[1] "For example, a new standard Toyota Camry Hybrid costs around S$250,000 in Singapore, which includes the cost of a COE and taxes. That is about six times more expensive than in the US." .... "The lowest COE for a car costs S$104,000"
All of the answers I can think of are criminal.
Maybe it's my jaded European mindset, but - rich people have been a target since the dawn of civilization, flaunting wealth is a good way to attract attention from bad people.
I'm more concerned about locals finding out. That's why I don't talk about the cash I have on hand in my real life, ever.
I feel like that's relatively easy to do?
Seems like you can?
I don't understand what you mean with this.
And also, yes you can? I've purchased cattle (~100k) and vehicles (5-40k) with cash.
It's not insane and irresponsible. I legitimately do not understand your attitude with that. As long as you don't walk around with 100k in your hand waving it around, what's the danger? The world isn't as bad as the news would have you believe.
Also, Some people prefer doing business without involving electronics. I've bought things using cash, silver, canning jars, and baseball cards. I prefer to barter for goods and labor, but some people prefer cash. What's the problem with that?
Almost everyone I know if fairly stable third world countries keep about half a month of expenses in cash even after digital payments are predominant.
1. Handle in large quantities. The ransom paid here was $1 million. With crypto, transferring that much is a few keystrokes. With cash, it's basically a large bag of cash that needs to be moved around.
2. Hold for ransom. Given point #1, kidnappers (of people and data) know that it's much easier to demand payment of large amounts in crypto than cash. If you kidnap a rich person in the crypto world, kidnappers know it's easy for him to sign over a very large amount of bitcoin quickly, which looks to be what happened here. Even for a very wealthy person, it's not logistically easy to get a million dollars in cash, never mind hand it over in a way that isn't a huge risk for the kidnappers.
3. Launder. Crypto tumblers are still a thing despite US government crackdown. Laundering cash with recorded serial numbers is much harder.
I'm not denying that crypto may have some legitimate uses, but it's basically a dream come true for criminals.
On the other hand, if your business was a scam and you needed to explain where $1 million went to...
There are many many ways for the wealthy to procure bitcoin with zero restrictions.
You're just explaining why crypto is becoming increasingly popular for businesses in general: the tech works.
2. "You're just explaining why crypto is becoming increasingly popular for businesses in general" Citation definitely needed. I used to see "pay with Bitcoin!" in a couple places online about 5-8 years ago. I never see it now, and hardly anyone I know, even big time "crypto people", actually use crypto to buy anything. Almost all the "uses" I hear are speculation or criminal uses. The only legitimate use I've actually seen is cross-border payments.
This was a $1mm ransom. The attraction of crypto isn't that it's easy to launder. It's that it's easy to steal. Beat a crypto bro on the head and you know you can effect a verifiable, irreversible transfer. Wiring money involves many more steps and has all kinds of reverse options.
only the bad ones. See XMR
If criminals know somebody holds a significant amount of crypto, such as the CEO of a crypto company, they don't need to have them contact somebody else to withdraw and deliver a large amount of physical cash. They don't need to convince anyone they're serious. If the victim has their phone with them or can remember a password, then the criminals just have to coerce the victim into making a transfer.
Arguably, this isn't even really kidnapping in the traditional sense. It's high-tech mugging.
Owning a significant amount of crypto-currency and carrying the ability to make a transfer around in your head or pocket is basically the same as carrying a suitcase full of cash.
It's not expensive.
Just look at all the movie plots that hinge on "ransom payment gone wrong" scenes, where the actual handing over of payment results in some kidnappers getting killed. With crypto, it just becomes "send a large amount of bitcoin to address X by date Y, otherwise we start shipping you various body parts of the kidnappee on dates Y+1, Y+2, etc." This dynamic is also the reason ransomware is so effective.
that's why people don't do that very often, or if they do they walk around with armed guards until they aren't holding that cash anymore.
It's substantially harder to kidnap someone and force them to sell their business and then give the cash to you than it is to make them transfer their crypto. And realistically most people's wealth will be in a company or some shares, etc.
Die Hard inspired too many?
Maybe for now. The cryptocurrenty ricb are lower hanging fruit for sure, but crypto also make other kinds of kidnapping easier so I doubt it will remain soley in that realm.
> He says Skurka's abduction is the 171st instance of suspects using physical violence to steal bitcoins, that he's aware of.
Cryptocurrencies have the unique protection that _nobody_ who does not have the keys can access the funds. No system by itself can protects against violence resulting in coerced access.
Not with the ease with which you can transfer an unbounded amount of crypto. Completely different situation. The lack of any kind of fraud or theft protection or need to physically access cash is a great reason to not ever cop to owning crypto.
You call it a bug I call it a feature.
It's almost like no system is perfect and are perceptive to different threat models...
Cortes for example when he found out where the empire's gold was hidden he kidnapped Montezuma. Pretty blatant criminal activity. In no history books is mentioned any kind of wrong doing by the gold side. Gold doesn't do stuff it is an inanimate object, only humans with agency can perform actions, and be guilty of them or innocent.
Victims of kidnapping for BTC, they can only hope BTC's price go to zero, long before 2030. By 2030 it's price will be 0 for sure, the economics of the blockchain ensure that, but they could be lucky and BTC's price crashes and zero's out the next 3 months or so. They will not be wealthy any more, the kidnappers will lose interest in them and throw them out in landfill somewhere, hopefully alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Geschke#1992_kidnappin...
"In contrast, Russian cryptobros that I know tend to act very, very lowkey. The fewer people know about your activities, the better. Posting about dealing with crypto in social media is absolutely unthinkable. Why? Because that makes you too easy and lucrative prey"
https://x.com/kamilkazani/status/1579145927373508609?lang=en...
Some of his points sound reasonable to me.
> 2. [Non-violent entrepreneurs] are an abnormality. They create prosperity, yes, but they may flourish only in the artificial environment where the high-end violent entrepreneurs are being (constantly!) wiped out. They're the hothouse flowers, to put it simply
> 3. Much of the outer world is destitute because of violent entrepreneurs. Violent entrepreneurs are not wiped out -> they wipe out the non-violent ones -> the country cannot create stuff -> It is destitute
> 7. Non-violent entrepreneurs have prospered under artificially secure conditions and having (unknowingly) outsourced their security. If they don't understand it, you'd be much better off ignoring their advice when it comes to security and foreign policy.
Would the kidnapping have been less likely to happen at all, if the random had to be paid in physical currency (e.g., paper bills, gold)?
You could do a kidnapping like this in a couple hours and make your dinner date. If the victim doesn't wise up and get bodyguards or get out of bitcoin, you could kidnap them two or three times.
I mean, I get it, there are plenty of reasons to dislike crypto bro's, but immediately suggesting that they kidnapped themselves without any other evidence is insane.
I’m pretty sure it’s the former.
The real question would be „Did more claimed kidnappings of crypto CEOs turn out to be staged or were real?“.
Insane, or a famous form of security fraud that is mitigated by centralized banking systems and therefore highly attractive for crypto-owners.
It's a heads-I-win tails-you-lose situation. They were either kidnapped because the attackers knew there was nothing the CEO could do to defend himself, or he kidnapped himself knowing it was plausibly deniable and couldn't be tracked through traditional means. In either case it's reasonable to examine the extenuating circumstances and wonder why cryptocurrency is such a large target for crime.
Why it's not insane to consider that: people know that the cryptocurrency space is full of the unethical, and have seen many rug pulls blamed on theft by some mysterious unknown other party.
But, even if a $1M kidnapping was one of the standard cryptobro scam exits (it's not; it's chump change), you'd want more evidence before you start accusing someone who might actually be a traumatized victim.
It looks as though only scam coins are allowed to succeed in the space and well-intentioned people are forced to become scammers or else they'll become a target of the SEC or some other gov entity. I've had some REALLY f*ed up interactions with major figures which are almost impossible to explain otherwise. Also in terms of funding, you will see government entities funding projects that are obvious scams over and over. These are not government entities from 'banana republics' BTW, these are western governments. It's not just the founders themselves who are corrupt, it's literally the government apparatus around it.
When you have various government entities actively supporting fraud, it creates an environment which is worse than lawlessness. Being an honest person in the space is untenable; you just wouldn't last.
“Look what you made me do. You left me no choice but to hurt you.”
Also, one telltale sign is that they were allowed to get away with stuff which I later learned would have been in violation of regulations. This was a very high profile project that reached 3 billion+ market cap. It didn't fall under the radar. The government knew the whole time and was involved in all decisions.
I also saw some scam projects receive repeat funding from EU government entities in spite of having failed to deliver anything. Then they raised more funds for later projects.
Much like if the same money was used for medical procedures that aren't covered by the health-plan.
> He was released after a ransom of $1 million was paid electronically, a source close to the investigation said.