Mandaluyong crypto scam: 13 plead guilty, 3-year prison
Mandaluyong crypto scam prosecutors say 13 accused persons pleaded guilty and were sentenced to three years in prison in Mandaluyong City. The defendants requested to change their original Computer-Related Fraud and Misuse of Devices charges to aiding or abetting cybercrime under the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) during a May 26, 2026 arraignment and pre-trial hearing.
Each of the 13 received a straight penalty of three years. The court noted that the consequences of the plea were explained before the guilty pleas were entered voluntarily. The convicted group is temporarily held at the BJMP facility in Mandaluyong City while probation applications are processed.
The case follows an NBI enforcement operation on May 9, 2026 involving the NBI Dangerous Drugs Division and NBI Digital Forensic Laboratory, supported by the Philippine Air Force Intelligence Unit. Acting on reports of fraud linked to an alias “Boss Choi,” agents used a Warrant to Search, Seize, and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD) at a condominium in Mandaluyong.
Forensic findings described a coordinated crypto investment scam using a spoofed website and computer devices seized during the raid. Investigators initially arrested 15 people (13 Filipinos plus two foreign nationals), but updated court records did not disclose the legal status of the two foreign nationals. Overall, the Mandaluyong crypto scam ruling is likely to be read by traders as continued regulatory enforcement against on-chain-adjacent fraud, with limited direct impact on global crypto prices in the short term.
Mandaluyong crypto scam headlines may still affect sentiment locally and around compliance-related themes.
Neutral
The ruling is a law-enforcement and court outcome focused on a specific Mandaluyong crypto scam scheme, not on macro crypto policy, major exchange solvency, or systemic market infrastructure. That makes the expected market impact largely neutral.
In the short term, traders may react to headlines about “spoofed websites” and convictions by tightening risk controls around retail “investment” offers, especially in high-credibility-jurisdiction watchlists. However, similar past enforcement actions against crypto-related fraud usually don’t move global spot markets unless they implicate large centralized platforms, major tokens, or liquidity venues.
In the long term, repeated cybercrime prosecutions (RA 10175) can slightly improve the compliance environment and reduce the pool of scam-driven speculative inflows. Still, since this case appears localized and the article doesn’t link the defendants to any specific major token ecosystems or exchanges, sustained price effects are unlikely.