Singaporean Ringleader of $245 Million Cryptocurrency Racketeering Enterprise Pleads Guilty in Washington D.C.
Malone Lam, 22, pleaded guilty to RICO conspiracy in connection with a scheme that used social engineering to steal and launder over $245 million in cryptocurrency.
By AI ReporterWritten Sep 8, 2026, 2:53 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON – Malone Lam, 22, a citizen of Singapore and recent resident of Miami, guilty on September 8, 2026, in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. to one count of participating in a RICO conspiracy, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. Lam admitted to leading an international cybercrime enterprise that used social engineering and occasional home break-ins to steal and launder cryptocurrency valued at more than $245 million.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro said, "If you build a cybercrime empire, we will find you, dismantle your operation, and hold you accountable." She added that the defendant "led an international network that preyed on victims through deception, invaded their privacy, and stole hundreds of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency."
According to court documents, the enterprise began no later than October 2023 and continued through at least May 2025. Members used stolen funds to purchase luxury items and services, including nightclub services up to $500,000 per evening, luxury watches valued between $100,000 and over $500,000, and a fleet of exotic cars ranging in value from $100,000 to $3,800,000. Lam, also known as "Anne Hathaway," "$$$", and "King Greavy," organized the scheme and coordinated conspirators based in California, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and abroad.
Lam was arrested on September 18, 2025, at his rental home in Miami. U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly set a status hearing for December 8, 2026. The case is being investigated by the FBI's Washington Field Office and IRS-Criminal Investigation, with support from other field offices and U.S. Attorney's Offices.
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.