When Canadian cryptocurrency entrepreneur Harry Chun Tak Yeh plunged to his death from a high-rise in Paraguay in August, the circumstances drew attention to a decidedly low-tech threat facing the high-tech world of digital assets: physical violence.
Physical attacks on cryptocurrency holders—known as “wrench attacks”—have risen for three straight years. Yeh’s death has prompted speculation within the crypto community that he may have been targeted in just such an attack.
The Hong Kong-born founder of Quantum Fintech Group fell from the 30th floor of a luxury residential tower in Asunción on Aug. 7. His unclothed body was found covered by a black plastic bag, while his apartment upstairs had been ransacked and its doors left open.
Paraguayan authorities have not publicly linked Yeh’s death to a wrench attack, and there is no public evidence that cryptocurrency was stolen or that he was forced to surrender access to his digital assets. His death remains under investigation.
Long before his death drew international attention, Yeh was a prominent tech entrepreneur in Vancouver.
Attacks on the Rise
The term “wrench attack” refers to the use of physical violence, coercion, or threats to force cryptocurrency holders to surrender hardware wallets, passwords, private keys, or other means of accessing their digital assets.
Cryptocurrency security has traditionally focused on digital defences such as encryption, cold storage, and network security. But the ease of instant, irreversible self-custody transfers has incentivized organized crime rings to turn to conventional criminal methods, including home invasions, abductions, and physical extortion.
Unlike assets held through a traditional financial institution, self-custodied cryptocurrency can be transferred directly by its owner without a bank or other intermediary blocking the transaction. Digital firewalls, two-factor authentication, and complex encryption offer little protection when the person controlling the assets is being physically beaten.
More than 50 physical extortion incidents involving cryptocurrency were reported globally in the first half of 2026, compared with 70 to 80 in all of 2025, according to blockchain security firm CertiK.
Recent cases in Canada and abroad illustrate the tactics, the targets, and the emergence of hotspots for this type of crime.
Crypto Holders Targeted in France
France has emerged as a focal point for wrench attacks, with some cases involving digital data leaks that exposed the residential addresses of cryptocurrency holders.
In February 2026, three armed men broke into the residence of David Prinçay, CEO of the French arm of Binance, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, in the early morning hours. Prinçay was not home at the time.
In August, several armed individuals broke into the home of a couple with cryptocurrency holdings in the Landes region of southwestern France at about 4 a.m., and demanded access to their Bitcoin wallets.
The attackers separated the couple and held them under duress. The husband was later dropped off about 20 kilometres away, unclothed and suffering numerous cuts, while his wife was abandoned in a vehicle several kilometres away.
The cases illustrate another vulnerability facing cryptocurrency holders: The assets themselves may be digital, but their owners can be located through conventional means. Public displays of wealth, a prominent online cryptocurrency presence, and leaked personal data can potentially expose holders to physical targeting.
That was a factor in a major wrench attack in the United Kingdom.
Data Leak Leads Attackers to Investor’s Home
Three attackers broke into the home of a prominent British cryptocurrency investor in June 2024 after his residential address was exposed in a data leak. They assaulted him and threatened him at knifepoint until he transferred approximately US$4.3 million in digital assets.
However, the case also demonstrated a potential disadvantage for the attackers: Cryptocurrency transactions recorded on a public blockchain can sometimes be traced after the assets have been stolen.
Under Operation Clawback, authorities used blockchain analytics to follow the stolen funds as they moved through different accounts. Investigators identified off-ramps used to purchase gift cards and electronics, helping six UK police forces recover the stolen funds and secure convictions against those involved.
The same type of physical targeting has also occurred in Canada.
Canada Incidents
In Richmond, B.C., a group posing as police officers gained entry to a cryptocurrency investor’s home. Once inside, the attackers restrained the occupants and forced the transfer of approximately $10 million in cryptocurrency.
While the Richmond attackers went to their target’s home, other wrench attacks have involved luring or abducting victims and holding them until they provide access to their cryptocurrency.
One of Canada’s most prominent cases involved Aiden Pleterski, an Ontario cryptocurrency investor who styled himself as the “Crypto King.”
In December 2022, following the collapse of his multimillion-dollar cryptocurrency investment operation, Pleterski was abducted in downtown Toronto by individuals seeking to recover money they had invested with him.
He was held captive for three days, driven across southern Ontario, and beaten and tortured as his captors demanded millions of dollars.
In other cases, the victims have been lured to their captors.
Lured Into Captivity in Manhattan
In one highly publicized U.S. case, a 28-year-old Italian cryptocurrency holder was allegedly lured to a luxury townhouse in Manhattan. He was held captive and tortured by two men who demanded the victim’s private keys and Bitcoin passwords.
The victim escaped and alerted a traffic enforcement officer. The case resulted in criminal charges against the alleged perpetrators.
The attacks have prompted cryptocurrency holders and security firms to consider measures designed specifically to limit the damage from physical coercion.
These include multi-signature wallets, which require more than one authorization to move assets; institutional custody, in which a third party controls access to the assets; and so-called duress wallets, designed to limit what an attacker can access if a holder is forced to unlock a wallet.
The cases illustrate a dilemma confronting cryptocurrency investors: As digital security becomes more sophisticated, criminals can bypass it by targeting the person who holds the keys.
English (US) · 
Turkish (TR) · 