What happened
Reuters court reporting dated 11 June 2025; both defendants pleaded not guilty.
Reuters reported that two crypto investors pleaded not guilty on 11 June 2025 to charges involving the alleged captivity of an acquaintance in a SoHo townhouse. Prosecutors said the parties had communicated for years. [S89]
The prosecution alleged that a May meeting led to devices being taken and coercion for a bitcoin password. Defence lawyers disputed the account and said the complainant could leave. These allegations are not established convictions. [S89]
This record does not resolve the disputed facts or establish a later final judgment. It does not verify the alleged victim’s wealth, wallet design or final asset loss.
What to take from it
A longstanding online relationship and an impressive private venue should not replace meeting safeguards. This is a planning lesson, not a finding about the defendants or the complainant.
Turn it into a plan
Suggested preparation—not a claim about what the people involved should have done. Independent expert review of the guide remains pending.
Keep independent meeting arrangements
Choose a verifiable venue, retain transport and agree a check-in with someone outside the meeting. Familiarity should not waive the process.
Read the practical guidanceLimit what an everyday device controls
Review normal spending and recovery permissions with an appropriate specialist before travelling. Do not improvise custody changes during a confrontation.
Read the practical guidanceHave an outside escalation contact
Agree how missed contact is assessed and how credible danger is reported to local emergency services.
Read the practical guidanceWould you retain your normal meeting safeguards when the invitation comes from a contact you have known online for years?
Discuss privately with your household using a fictional scenario. Keep actual addresses, routines, custody details and verification phrases out of this site.
Put the lesson into practice