The US Court Grants $75.8 Million To Crypto Investor in Cyber Theft Case

By Prashant Jha

A  California Superior court has given its verdict in favor of the crypto investor Micheal Turpin,  granting $75.8 million dollars in a settlement in the cyber-theft case against AT&T. Turpin has filed a case against the AT&T for negligence which led to a theft of $24 million worth of cryptocurrency in 2017.

The investigation led to the identification of the thief, a 21-year old Nicholas Truglia who is reportedly involved in six other similar cases of theft. However, the ongoing theft of $24 million worth of crypto is the biggest heist for the accused, after which Turpin went ahead with the case in the California case.

What Led The Investigation to The Accused

Nicholas Truglia, the suspect and now accused was caught due to his exchange of texts with his friends about the heist. Truglia’s friend Chirs Davis confirmed in his affidavit that his friend has been living quite a luxurious life after the theft as he bought sports cars, private jets, and Rolex watches. One of his texts to Davis read,

“I’m a millionaire. I’m not kidding. I have 100 Bitcoin.”

Truglia used the SIM swapping technique to dupe high-end investors and mostly targeted investors from the Bay-Area. The accused used the technique to hijack incoming phone calls and text messages of the victim which were initiated by crypto exchanges for customer authentication.

Truglia has been ordered to pay $75.8 million in compensation and punitive damage to the victim. One must note that these cases of cyber thefts of cryptocurrencies do not put a question on the safety of the cryptocurrencies, as it could have been any other entity, and it is only the case of unethical practices. The thief could have pulled off the same heist on any bank transfer as well.

Final Thoughts

Cryptocurrency thefts and hacks are often shown as the failure of the technology, which is not true since all of them are either because of the negligence of the victim of an exchange with inadequate security measures. The current example also highlights the need for regulations without which the victim could have never been able to report the theft or expect any help from