← CoinW6reviewed 2026-09-07 · 32 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read CoinW6 against the sources the page cites. Only the most recent review is shown.
Read this first
These findings are produced by an automated reviewer, and its results vary between runs: the same page, checked three times on the same day, came back with 15%, 20% and 34% of its claims disputed, mostly because each run extracted a different number of claims. Treat what follows as leads, not rulings.
“Disputed” means the reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. It does not mean the claim is false. “Unverifiable” means no reachable source settled it either way.
Nothing here changes the page on its own. A proposed correction is applied only after a human moderator approves it; until then the page reads as it did when reviewed.
disputed
1 claimThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #21[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Legal Proceedings and Case Status
“In the companion NanoBit case (filed in the Eastern District of New York), a $5.5 million default judgment was entered on June 16, 2026, against four entities (NanoBit Limited, Sweet Karma, Zhao Deli, and Radiant Horizons) and two individuals (Jiajie Liu and Hua Zhao).”
reviewerA $5.5 million default judgment was entered on June 16, 2026 in the NanoBit case against four entities (NanoBit Limited, Sweet Karma, Zhao Deli, and Radiant Horizons) and two individuals (Jiajie Liu and Hua Zhao)The judgment amount, date, court, and the two named individuals are all correct, but the entity 'Zhao Deli' does not match the actual corporate defendant name 'Zhao Tropical Deli Inc.' as it appears in both the original 2024 complaint and the underlying judgment; as written it reads as if a person named Zhao Deli were penalized as an entity.Proposed correction (not yet applied)In the companion NanoBit case (filed in the Eastern District of New York), a $5.5 million default judgment was entered on June 16, 2026, against four entities (NanoBit Limited, Sweet Karma, Zhao Tropical Deli, and Radiant Horizons) and two individuals (Jiajie Liu and Hua Zhao).
unverifiable
1 claimNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #13[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Victims and Financial Losses
“These figures represent minimum confirmed losses identified in the complaints and may not reflect total harm from the broader network of operators.”
reviewerThe $2.2M/$3.2M loss figures represent minimum confirmed losses and may not reflect total harm from a broader network of operatorsThis is editorial speculation appended to sourced figures; no cited or independently found source frames the losses as a minimum bound tied to a wider unnamed network.
partially supported
5 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #14[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Domains and Technical Infrastructure
“The use of bybit.cc is notable as it mimics the name of the legitimate Bybit exchange — a tactic typical of pig butchering operations that use lookalike brand names to lend false credibility.”
reviewerThe use of bybit.cc mimics the legitimate Bybit exchange, a tactic typical of pig-butchering operationsThe domain name is accurately listed, but the characterization as deliberate brand-mimicry is the page's own inference rather than something drawn from a cited source, even though it is a reasonable and common observation about such domains. - #19[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Legal Proceedings and Case Status
“As of April 2026, the SEC withdrew an earlier motion for default judgment, with docket records showing a notice of deficiency regarding the default request.”
reviewerAs of April 2026, the SEC withdrew an earlier motion for default judgment, with a notice of deficiency on the default requestThe events and dates are accurate, but the docket shows the withdrawn filing sought a clerk's entry of default (Rule 55(a)), not a default judgment (Rule 55(b)); the page conflates two distinct procedural steps. - #25[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“CoinW6 scheme allegedly begins, with operators contacting victims on LinkedIn and Instagram and developing romantic relationships over WhatsApp.”
reviewerCoinW6 scheme allegedly began on 2022-07-01The event description is accurate, but the specific day-level date is manufactured precision not supported by the cited source, which only specifies the month. No corrected exact date could be independently verified, so no replacement date is proposed. - #26[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“CoinW6 scheme period ends, per the SEC complaint. At least 11 investors allegedly defrauded of approximately $2.2 million.”
reviewerCoinW6 scheme period ended on 2023-12-31, per the SEC complaintThe dollar figure and investor count are correct, but treating December 31, 2023 as a firm end date overstates what 'at least December 2023' supports. No corrected exact date could be independently verified. - #30[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“SEC withdraws its motion for default judgment in the CoinW6 case.”
reviewerSEC withdraws its motion for default judgment in the CoinW6 case on 2026-04-23Date is correct, but the filing withdrawn was a motion for the clerk's entry of default (Rule 55(a)), a distinct and earlier procedural step than a default judgment (Rule 55(b)), which was never sought.
confirmed
25 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“CoinW6 is a fraudulent cryptocurrency trading platform at the center of the SEC's first-ever enforcement action targeting a pig butchering (relationship investment) scam, filed September 17, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-07924).”
reviewerSEC's complaint against CoinW6 is the agency's first-ever enforcement action targeting a pig butchering scam, filed September 17, 2024 in C.D. Cal., Case No. 2:24-cv-07924Filing date, court, case number and 'first-ever' characterization are all directly supported by the SEC litigation release and corroborated by Law360 and TRM Labs coverage. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“According to the SEC's complaint, operators of CoinW6 posed as wealthy professionals on LinkedIn and Instagram, cultivated romantic relationships with victims over WhatsApp, then directed at least 11 investors to a fake trading interface that displayed fabricated returns, stealing approximately $2.2 million between July 2022 and December 2023.”
reviewerOperators posed as wealthy professionals on LinkedIn/Instagram, cultivated relationships over WhatsApp, directed at least 11 investors to a fake trading interface, stealing approximately $2.2 million between July 2022 and December 2023Matches SEC's own description of the scheme mechanics and figures exactly. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“As of mid-2026, the case remains pending, with the SEC seeking service by publication after defendants failed to appear.”
reviewerAs of mid-2026 the case remains pending, with the SEC seeking service by publication after defendants failed to appearConfirmed against the live docket. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Overview and Regulatory Status
“CoinW6 is not a registered broker-dealer, exchange, or investment adviser.”
reviewerCoinW6 is not a registered broker-dealer, exchange, or investment adviserNo registration record found; consistent with the SEC's unregistered-securities-offering charge. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Overview and Regulatory Status
“The SEC's complaint, filed September 17, 2024, alleges that CoinW6 and its operators offered and sold securities through an unregistered offering and violated the antifraud provisions of federal securities laws — specifically Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.”
reviewerThe SEC's complaint charges Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934Statutory citations match the SEC's own litigation release verbatim. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Overview and Regulatory Status
“The SEC's complaint represents the agency's first-ever enforcement action expressly targeting a pig butchering scheme involving a fake crypto trading platform.”
reviewerThe complaint represents the SEC's first-ever enforcement action expressly targeting a pig-butchering scheme involving a fake crypto trading platformCorroborated by multiple independent secondary sources beyond the SEC's own framing. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Overview and Regulatory Status
“A companion case against the related platform NanoBit was filed simultaneously.”
reviewerA companion case against the related platform NanoBit was filed simultaneouslyConfirmed. - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Alleged Fraud Scheme
“Victims were allegedly told they could earn daily returns of up to 3% through fabricated crypto asset products described as staking, mining, and yield farming — products the SEC states were entirely fictitious.”
reviewerFrom July 2022 to December 2023, participants contacted victims on LinkedIn/Instagram posing as young wealthy professionals, then pursued romantic relationships over WhatsApp, promising up to 3% daily returns via fictitious staking/mining/yield-farming productsMatches SEC press release language closely. - #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Alleged Fraud Scheme
“According to the SEC, CoinW6.com and associated domains (6hsh.com, dmd567.com, bybit.cc, and cglobalw.com) were all controlled as part of the same fraudulent infrastructure.”
reviewerCoinW6.com and associated domains (6hsh.com, dmd567.com, bybit.cc, cglobalw.com) were all controlled as part of the same fraudulent infrastructureDomain list matches the SEC litigation release exactly. - #10[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Alleged Fraud Scheme
“When victims attempted to withdraw funds, the SEC alleges operators demanded additional payments framed as taxes or fees, claimed assets were frozen due to law enforcement inquiries, or threatened to leak compromising private communications obtained during the cultivated romantic relationship — a form of blackmail.”
reviewerWhen victims attempted withdrawals, operators demanded additional fees/taxes, claimed assets frozen, or threatened blackmail using compromising communicationsConsistent with SEC's description of the extortion tactics. - #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Victims and Financial Losses
“The SEC's complaint alleges that CoinW6 defrauded at least 11 investors of approximately $2.2 million during the scheme's operating period of July 2022 to December 2023.”
reviewerAt least 11 investors were defrauded of approximately $2.2 million during July 2022–December 2023Confirmed directly from primary source. - #12[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Victims and Financial Losses
“Across both the CoinW6 and NanoBit cases, the SEC alleges combined losses of approximately $3.2 million.”
reviewerCombined CoinW6 and NanoBit losses total approximately $3.2 millionArithmetic checks out against independently sourced per-case figures ($2.2M + ~$0.97M). - #15[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Domains and Technical Infrastructure
“According to reporting citing the SEC complaint, victim deposits in USDT were diverted through a tumbler, a cryptocurrency mixing service used to obscure the trail of funds.”
reviewerVictim deposits in USDT were diverted through a tumbler (cryptocurrency mixing service)Confirmed via the underlying SEC complaint text. - #16[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Legal Proceedings and Case Status
“The SEC filed Case No. 2:24-cv-07924 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 17, 2024.”
reviewerThe SEC filed Case No. 2:24-cv-07924 in C.D. Cal. on September 17, 2024, naming CoinW6 as the primary defendant operating through the listed domainsConfirmed against the live docket. - #17[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Legal Proceedings and Case Status
“The case involves five entities and three individuals across both the CoinW6 and NanoBit actions combined, though specific individual defendants in the CoinW6 complaint have not been publicly identified by name in available reporting at time of publication.”
reviewerThe case involves five entities and three individuals across both the CoinW6 and NanoBit actions combined, and specific CoinW6 individual defendants have not been publicly namedEntity/individual counts reconcile exactly against the original press release and CoinDesk's headline count. - #18[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Legal Proceedings and Case Status
“The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.”
reviewerThe SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penaltiesStandard SEC remedies language, confirmed. - #20[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Legal Proceedings and Case Status
“On July 14, 2026, the court granted the SEC's motion for service by publication — allowing service via the New York Times International Edition and a public webpage — suggesting defendants have not been formally served through standard means.”
reviewerOn July 14, 2026, the court granted the SEC's motion for service by publication via the NYT International Edition and a public webpageConfirmed exactly against the docket, including the date. - #22[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Pig Butchering Context
“Pig butchering scams — known in Chinese as sha zhu pan — are a category of confidence fraud that combines romance manipulation with fabricated investment returns.”
reviewerPig butchering scams (sha zhu pan) combine romance manipulation with fabricated investment returnsUncontroversial, well-documented terminology. - #23[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Pig Butchering Context
“According to TRM Labs, scams and fraud accounted for approximately one-third of all crypto-related crime in 2023, totaling an estimated $12.5 billion in losses globally.”
reviewerTRM Labs: scams/fraud accounted for approximately one-third of all crypto-related crime in 2023, totaling an estimated $12.5 billion in losses globallyNear-verbatim match to the cited TRM Labs source. - #24[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Pig Butchering Context
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies have separately warned about the scale of pig butchering operations, which are frequently linked to organized criminal networks operating out of Southeast Asia.”
reviewerThe FBI and other agencies have warned about the scale of pig butchering operations, frequently linked to organized crime in Southeast AsiaWell-supported by independent DOJ/FBI material, though the page does not cite a specific source for this general-background sentence. - #27[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“SEC files complaint against CoinW6 in U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-07924), in the agency's first-ever enforcement action targeting a pig butchering scheme. A companion NanoBit action is filed simultaneously.”
reviewerSEC files complaint against CoinW6 on 2024-09-17 in C.D. Cal (Case No. 2:24-cv-07924), with a companion NanoBit action filed simultaneouslyConfirmed. - #28[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“SEC files request for clerk to enter default in the CoinW6 case.”
reviewerSEC files request for clerk to enter default in the CoinW6 case on 2026-04-21Confirmed and correctly worded, unlike the related April 23 entry. - #29[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“Court issues notice of deficiency regarding the SEC's default request in the CoinW6 case.”
reviewerCourt issues notice of deficiency regarding the SEC's default request on 2026-04-22Confirmed exactly. - #31[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York enters a $5.5 million default judgment in the companion NanoBit case against four entities and two individuals.”
reviewerEDNY enters a $5.5 million default judgment in the NanoBit case against four entities and two individuals on 2026-06-16This entry does not name the entities/individuals, so it does not carry the naming error found in sections[4]. - #32[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline
“Court grants SEC's motion for service by publication in the CoinW6 case, permitting notice via the New York Times International Edition and a public webpage, indicating defendants have not been served through standard means.”
reviewerCourt grants SEC's motion for service by publication on 2026-07-14Confirmed exactly against the docket.
How this fits together. The reviewer reads the published page and its cited sources and records one finding per claim. A human moderator decides whether each proposed correction is applied; those decisions, and the score changes they cause, appear in the audit log. Earlier review runs are not shown here; only the latest reflects the page as it stands.