A newly filed federal complaint accuses an individual and a network of foreign companies of running a multimillion-dollar cryptocurrency investment scam. On June 1, 2026, Agnes Chok-Hung Yeung, a Las Vegas resident, sued Oscar Wenxuan Long, the online trading platform Vctzxsha.com, and several overseas entities in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case is captioned Agnes Chok-Hung Yeung v. Oscar Wenxuan Long, No. 2:26-cv-05838 (C.D. Cal.).
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was induced to send roughly $6.125 million through seventeen wire transfers, after which the defendants froze her account and demanded further payments she describes as bogus “fees” and “taxes” (Complaint, pp. 1, 5). She says she has recovered nothing, while her Trust Wallet still displays a frozen balance of $16,902,204.07 (Complaint, p. 6).
The filing matters because it lays out, in unusual detail, how a “pig butchering” investment scam can move money out of U.S. banks and into accounts abroad, and which legal theories a victim may use to try to recover it. The sections below cover the parties and the platform, how the scheme allegedly unfolded, where the money went, the claims asserted, and the emergency relief requested.
Who are the parties in Yeung v. Long, and what is the Vctzxsha.com platform?
The complaint names one individual, six business or online defendants, and Doe defendants. The lead defendant, Oscar Wenxuan Long, allegedly contacted the plaintiff through LinkedIn on or about June 17, 2025, posing as a former Senior Vice President of Drug Discovery at Genentech with fifteen years of experience who had relocated to Los Angeles (Complaint, p. 4).
Vctzxsha.com is described as a business entity of unknown form that operated an online cryptocurrency trading platform accessible through Trust Wallet (Complaint, p. 3). The complaint alleges Long owned or controlled it, that it held itself out as operating under United States law, and that it was not registered or licensed as a cryptocurrency exchange, broker-dealer, or money transmitter under federal or California law (Complaint, pp. 3-4). The remaining corporate defendants, including DEXOTECH I.T LTD, BIXTECH SMC LTD, RUQTECH SMC LTD, MOVO TECH SMC LTD, and PT PERDAGANGAN DUNIA KATULISTIWA, are alleged to be shell entities used as conduits to launder and conceal the funds (Complaint, p. 5).
How did the alleged cryptocurrency scam unfold?
The complaint describes a relationship that began on LinkedIn, moved to WhatsApp, and then steered the plaintiff to a fake trading platform. Long allegedly built trust through professional-looking posts and messages and used several U.S. phone numbers before pitching Vctzxsha.com as a real-time long/short cryptocurrency platform offering 15% returns per successful trade with near-instant settlement (Complaint, pp. 4-5).
Relying on those representations, the plaintiff says she made seventeen wire transfers totaling about $6,125,000 between August 1, 2025 and February 5, 2026 (Complaint, p. 5). When she tried to withdraw funds on or about January 2, 2026, the defendants allegedly demanded and received a $1.06 million “service fee” and a $1.57 million “short-term capital gains tax” (Complaint, pp. 5-6). They then claimed the account required a “large remittance review” of about ten business days, but the account stayed frozen (Complaint, p. 6). Long allegedly went silent after saying he was in Hong Kong “moving funds back to the U.S.,” and later attempted a follow-on recovery scam by soliciting an additional $2,000 in cryptocurrency for a supposed finance consultant in New York (Complaint, p. 6).
For more on how these schemes are structured, see our resource center overview of pig butchering scams.
Where did the wire transfers go, and how much money is at issue?
The exhibits trace wires from the plaintiff’s Wells Fargo and Citibank accounts to bank accounts in Uganda and Indonesia. The Wells Fargo records show transfers to Ugandan entities at Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited in Kampala, including DEXOTECH I.T LTD (account 9030026711141), BIXTECH SMC LTD (account 9030026637448), RUQTECH SMC LTD (account 9030026940728), and MOVO TECH SMC LTD (account 9030027296865) (Ex. A, C, E; Complaint, p. 4). The Citibank records show transfers to Indonesian recipients, including PT PERDAGANGAN DUNIA KATULISTIWA, at PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia in Jakarta (account 176701000357305) (Ex. I; Complaint, p. 4).
The exhibits also include app screenshots that, according to the filing, show the platform’s “customer service” chat directing the plaintiff to wire money to U.S. individuals and companies at domestic banks (Ex. T, U). Several wire forms list purposes such as “for AI purchase” and “payment for services,” and a number of beneficiary names in the exhibits go beyond the entities named as defendants (Ex. A, O). The complaint alleges the funds were misappropriated and that no legitimate trading platform existed (Complaint, p. 6).
For more on tracing and recovering misappropriated digital assets, see our resource center page on crypto fraud and asset recovery.
What claims and legal theories does the complaint assert?
The complaint pleads seven causes of action against all defendants. They are fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.), violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.), breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and civil conspiracy (Complaint, pp. 6-7).
For jurisdiction, the plaintiff invokes diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the latter tied to claims she says implicate wire fraud and securities laws (Complaint, p. 2). The complaint also alleges the platform operated as an unregistered cryptocurrency platform and money transmitter in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq.) and FinCEN regulations, and that it failed to register with FinCEN (Complaint, pp. 3, 6).
What emergency relief is the plaintiff seeking in Yeung v. Long?
The plaintiff asks the court for immediate emergency relief in the form of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction freezing all assets traceable to her funds, including cryptocurrency wallets and bank accounts (Complaint, pp. 2, 7). She also requests leave to serve the platform and the Doe defendants by alternative means, including email, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, website contact portals, and blockchain wallet addresses tied to the transactions (Complaint, pp. 7-8).
Beyond the injunctive relief, the prayer seeks compensatory damages of $16,902,204.07 or the amount proven, punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement, attorney’s fees and costs where recoverable, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest (Complaint, p. 8). The plaintiff also demands a jury trial (Complaint, p. 8). The complaint and its exhibits are available on the public docket at CourtListener.
Learn More
For more on this topic and related developments, see our resource center at digitalasset.law. If you have questions, you can request a consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Yeung v. Long lawsuit about?
It is a federal lawsuit alleging a cryptocurrency investment scam that cost the plaintiff about $6.125 million. Filed June 1, 2026 in the Central District of California, the complaint says Agnes Chok-Hung Yeung was lured into wiring funds to a platform called Vctzxsha.com, that the money was routed to overseas accounts, and that her account was then frozen (Complaint, pp. 1, 5-6).
Is Vctzxsha.com a registered cryptocurrency platform?
The complaint alleges it is not. It claims Vctzxsha.com was not registered or licensed as a cryptocurrency exchange, broker-dealer, or money transmitter under federal or California law, and that it failed to register with FinCEN (Complaint, pp. 3-4). The complaint frames this as a violation of the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq.) and related FinCEN rules (Complaint, p. 6).
How much money is involved, and where did the wire transfers go?
The complaint alleges seventeen wire transfers totaling about $6.125 million between August 2025 and February 2026 (Complaint, p. 5). The exhibits trace those wires from Wells Fargo and Citibank to accounts at Stanbic Bank Uganda in Kampala and PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia in Jakarta (Ex. A, I). Separately, the plaintiff says her Trust Wallet shows a frozen balance of $16,902,204.07 and that she has recovered nothing (Complaint, p. 6).
What legal claims did the plaintiff bring against the defendants?
The complaint pleads seven causes of action against all defendants. They are fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.), violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.), breach of contract and the implied covenant, and civil conspiracy (Complaint, pp. 6-7).
What is the plaintiff asking the court to do?
She is asking first for emergency relief: a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction freezing all assets traceable to her funds, including wallets and bank accounts, plus leave to serve the foreign and anonymous defendants by email, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and blockchain addresses (Complaint, pp. 7-8). She also seeks compensatory damages of $16,902,204.07 or the proven amount, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, fees, and interest (Complaint, p. 8).
What is a “pig butchering” scam, and how does this case reflect one?
“Pig butchering” describes a long-con investment fraud in which a scammer builds trust over time, often through social media or messaging apps, then directs the victim to a fake trading platform and encourages escalating deposits. The Yeung complaint describes that pattern: contact through LinkedIn, a shift to WhatsApp, promises of high returns, and demands for further “fees” and “taxes” once withdrawals were attempted (Complaint, pp. 4-6). The allegations remain unproven, and the defendants have not yet responded.