I received a call at noon today and received a seven-figure salary, which is enough to buy another Porsche.
The story began on July 1st. I was still in Tokyo at the time. Because I received a call from Lawyer Cao, I missed the return bus of the house-viewing group.
At that time, Yingke’s lawyer Cao Shiyong approached Juzuo and said that there was a case in which a client transferred more than a dozen bitcoins to OKCoin many years ago, and had asked for them several times but never got them back. He asked me whether this case was feasible.
After studying the case, Juzuo felt that the matter was not complicated from a logical point of view. During the process of two people transferring coins, one party transferred the Bitcoin back to the other party. As a result, the coin did not return to the other party, but went to OKCoin's hot wallet.
This is set by the exchange's mechanism. That is, the address you see for sending coins is actually the exchange's hot wallet address, not the other party's own wallet address.
Everyone should know this rule now, so they will repeatedly check their receiving addresses, but 9 years ago, people often made mistakes.
For the exchange, this asset is a deposited asset. In theory, it can be recovered as long as a complete chain of evidence is provided, so Juzuo took on this business.
Because this case is very classic and is also one of the few very representative cases in the entire cryptocurrency circle.
In order to protect the privacy of the parties involved and some business secrets, Juzuo can only give you a rough explanation of some of the things that can be talked about. The details are indeed not convenient to disclose.
During this period, Ju Zuo had many detailed communications and reviews with the parties, and finally signed the contract in mid-July, which started a tortuous story.
Because the client transferred the account to OKCoin, we still needed to switch to the original platform after communicating with OKX. So we started to communicate with OKCoin formally after OKX’s guidance and support.
Because the communication was via email, we could only reply and progress one by one, and it was not until the end of July that we were officially connected with OKCoin’s customer service team.
After receiving the official email from OKCoin, we began to organize the relevant information according to OKCoin's requirements. This was because OKCoin had seen the client's materials before, and the client had kept his original wallet, emails, and even hardware relatively well, so the required supporting materials could be provided relatively completely.
So after Juzuo helped sort out the explanation logic, he sent the email to OKCoin. Originally, I thought it could be carried out smoothly, but unexpectedly, there was a big problem at the first step - there was no hash.
One more explanation would like to be added here. When the party transferred the money to OKCoin 9 years ago, he used the Coinbase exchange. This exchange is very strange. When retrieving the transfer records of that year, the amount and time can be seen, but there is no hash value.
So OKCoin requires us to provide the hash and record it in full.
So I could only submit additional materials as required, but when I received the reply at night, I was shocked again: the video was not up to standard.
This means that the previous video has to be re-recorded and followed step by step according to their procedures in order to be considered a valid video.
I remember that night, the person involved recorded it several times for me to review, and after several repetitions it was finally successful, and then it was sent to OKCoin.
By the next day, it was still stuck on the hash.
Here we need to explain the situation again. Although Coinbase was used that year, Coinbase also stopped providing services to the region last year, so the Coinbase exchange account is currently unable to log in.
Things seem to be stuck here, stagnant because of a hash value.
Later, the person involved thought of contacting Coinbase’s Twitter customer service, and this trick actually worked.
After the person involved provided verification information on Twitter, Coinbase actually retrieved the hash value of that year, which gave us great hope.
But it still didn’t work. OKCoin said the hash was wrong and it wasn’t entered into our platform at all.
Oops, this is the hash given by Coinbase, why doesn't it work?
After our investigation, we found that the person involved made a mistake in the transaction record when tracing the hash value, and made it into another transaction, which caused this situation.
So I went back to coinbase to ask for the hash, and this time it was correct.
And now comes the critical step: OKCoin asks us which account we want to process.
When we received this news, both the person involved and I were very happy, thinking that we would be able to get the coins soon, but we didn’t expect that this link would be stuck for a long time.
Do you remember at the beginning of the article when Ju Zuo mentioned that he asked for it several times but didn’t get it back?
Because this transaction took place in 2015, Bitcoin was not very valuable at the time. I went to ask for it back after the incident, but I didn’t get it back because there was insufficient evidence.
I asked for it twice more in 2018 and 2020, and even went offline. Someone from OK also received me, but I didn’t ask for it back later.
Now the person who received me back then has resigned, Bitcoin is becoming more and more expensive, and finally I ended up here at Juzuo after many twists and turns.
As to why he had not been able to get it back in the first place, Ju Zuo first asked the person involved, and he said that he felt it was OK but he felt that the coins were valuable now and he was unwilling to give them back.
I wouldn't say it's necessary. Some time ago, OK had a much bigger incident than what you did and they paid the compensation. They won't default on their debt just for this amount.
So I asked my friends at OK again, and their reply was that because all the evidence provided at that time was photographic evidence, the authenticity and validity of the evidence could not be proven.
The authenticity of the picture is questionable, and there is some key evidence missing, such as the hash value that just stuck us.
This is also one of the reasons why Ju Zuo dared to take on this difficult and complicated case that had lasted for 9 years.
Let’s talk about the follow-up of this incident. Isn’t it time to deal with which account, but something unexpected happens again.
OKCoin requires authorization from the email addresses that were contacted that year, which means that if these email addresses are all designated to be processed to your account, they will be considered valid.
If any of the email addresses raise any objections, it will be deemed invalid.
So the party quickly contacted the other party of the transaction that year. Fortunately, the other party was an older sister who was in her fifties. They had been in contact for so many years, and the party had always entrusted her to handle these matters because she was another party that year and also a user of OKCoin.
After we got the mailbox, we found the following email in the trash:
In the reply to OKCoin on August 1, the other party requested that the money be processed to their OKCoin-bound mobile phone number instead of to my account.
My brain exploded again at that time. To be honest, during that period of time, Ju Zuo's brain had been beaten into a pulp repeatedly. Every time he was faced with a seemingly impossible task, he had to find a way to move forward.
We worked on it for a long time and were almost successful, but our teammates tried to backstab us?
What’s even more upsetting is that the person involved had such an important situation but didn’t tell me in detail before. The problem was only exposed at this time because the person involved had always told me that there was no problem on the other side.
To be honest, Ju Zuo was a little overwhelmed at this moment. After working on this for such a long time, the two sides ended up having a disagreement. In other words, if these two people could not reach a consensus, all this matter would be in vain.
But the person involved had strong confidence in this elder sister. When I questioned whether this elder sister wanted to cause trouble, the person involved kept saying, "It's impossible, it's impossible."
Later I found out what was going on.
It turned out that there was nothing wrong with the eldest sister, she just misunderstood.
Because the previous agreement between the two parties was to transfer the money to the eldest sister's account, and then she would transfer it back to my client.
There are also agreements and distributions between them.
So after seeing the email from OKCoin, my sister thought the deal was done and quickly left her email address, but I interpreted that as a backstab.
Later, the eldest sister reconfirmed the matter and unified the authority to handle the account to the person involved.
I originally thought that the matter had come to an end and I could finally confirm the final processing authority.
If nothing unexpected happens, something unexpected will happen again. OKCoin said that we have received approval from 2 email addresses, but there are other email addresses.
Damn, can you understand how I felt at that time?
It feels like Tang Monk has reached the end of his journey to obtain Buddhist scriptures, and then there’s still one more difficulty.
Not only me, but the person involved also collapsed.
The key to this question is, how do you define other?
One is something else, two are something else, a hundred are still something else.
We don’t know how many other email addresses have initiated applications for this matter. If someone we don’t know obtains this incident from other channels and then gets involved, we will never be able to unlock this asset in our lifetime.
The person involved is in the spotlight again, saying that OKCoin just wants to get his money. He said there must be other reasons, and this unfounded situation is just an attempt to deny the debt.
Ju Zuo interrupted him immediately and said, "Don't mention this again. If what you said is true, there is no possibility of getting it back at all. Let's just stop doing it."
We can only believe that OKCoin will not do this, and cooperating with them to provide material proof is the only way to get it back.
Although I was angry, I asked OKCoin, how many others are you talking about?
Fortunately, OKCoin responded: just one.
After some attempts, OKCoin finally gave a hint: Outlook mailbox.
Then the person involved started looking frantically again, and finally found one, but after sending it, it still said it was not the one, and it still didn’t work.
We are stuck again with this Outlook mailbox that popped up from nowhere.
Later we asked if you could give us some hints, even if you blocked some parts, to make it easier for us to recall.
OKCoin did not respond directly, but only told us that multiple people had applied for this transaction.
To be honest, both the person involved and I couldn't hold it anymore, so we confronted them.
At this point, things are stuck again.
We have finally solved so many problems, but any one of them can get us stuck.
Later, during a phone call with the person involved, Ju Zuo said that since this is a transaction between the two of you and the other party is willing to cooperate, and the only thing missing is an email address that cannot be found, why not come directly to China and do video authentication together?
Logically speaking, as long as both parties reach an agreement and provide an explanation when their identification documents are valid, then the matter is established and the issue of the email address will be self-defeating.
I asked OK, and they thought this approach might work, but it still required legal review.
It's the same as not saying anything.
But the person in question happened to have a business trip planned at the time, so he just did it first.
So I came to China, recorded a video with my elder sister offline, and then went to get it notarized.
This trick really works.
On August 12, I received an email from OKCoin.
A day later, I received another email about canceling the video certification.
This means that the incident has finally made significant progress.
But after submitting the video on August 14, there was no news for a long time, so I reminded them twice.
Finally, on the 20th, I received the most exciting email so far:
However, due to issues with video authentication, we had to do a second video authentication during the period. I won’t go into details here. It was mainly because the eldest sister couldn’t pronounce the letters correctly, which led to repeated recording.
However, on the 23rd, I finally received an email with the registered address.
At that time, I was taking my children camping and playing in the water by the creek. I really breathed a sigh of relief when I received this news.
The person concerned then replied with the registered address, and OK also replied. The next step was to wait for the currency to arrive.
And then it comes to today, Teacher's Day.
I was having lunch outside at noon when I suddenly received a call from the person involved. It turned out that the currency had arrived.
Then Ju Zuo quickly finished his meal and went back to deal with the wallet. In the end, both parties got a satisfactory result.
This matter was processed from mid-July to August 23, which took one month and achieved a monthly income of one million.
Finally, let’s summarize.
First of all, I would like to thank Yingke’s lawyer Cao Shiyong. If he hadn’t introduced this case to me, this story would have never had any follow-up. Lawyer Cao’s influence in web3 is growing, and now overseas clients have to entrust Lawyer Cao to handle their affairs.
You can also follow Cao Lu’s Douyin and video account, and consult him if you have any questions.
The person involved is a big brother in the industry. I had not yet entered the circle when he transferred the wrong account in 2015.
He was very rational and calm. All the equipment, emails and records from that time were kept very intact. He even maintained very good contact with his eldest sister. Otherwise, this matter would definitely not have been handled properly.
OK deserves special mention. After this incident, I have a new respect for OK Group, at least in terms of risk control process. Juzuo clearly saw their handling ideas, and the questions and materials they asked were very rigorous and professional. To be honest, we were very uncomfortable at one point.
From a game theory perspective, he is a respectable opponent.
As for Juzuo, I actually didn't do anything. It was purely because the client had a good foundation that this matter was accomplished. During the period, I just helped the client to sort out his ideas and wrote some emails.
But I’m very happy that this thing was accomplished. I found some sense of existence. In 2022, we helped users recover tens of millions of assets. I didn’t expect that after returning to the industry, I would be able to create another successful case like this. I’m very happy.
If you have similar cases, including exchange freezing, wrong currency transfer, bank card freezing, on-chain fund loss, card chain, hardware wallet lock, or even loss of part of the mnemonic phrase and other asset loss, you can send a private message to Juzuo, provided that the amount is okay. Don't come to me if you lost 3000u, I will not accept it.
Finally, lawyer friends are also welcome to introduce cases of this type. We have extensive experience in recovering encrypted assets. Cooperating with Juzuo at least has a bottom line guarantee and no tricks will be played.
