ChainCatcher reports that the U.S. Marshals Service is under intense scrutiny after its managed federal cryptocurrency wallets were hacked in 2024, resulting in approximately $24.9 million being stolen. According to security researcher ZachXBT, suspect John Daghita inadvertently revealed on Telegram that he controls the stolen funds. More notably, John is believed to be the son of Dean Daghita, CEO of CMDSS, a company that secured a $4 million contract with the Marshals Service in 2024 to assist with the sale of U.S. Bitcoin reserves.
The Marshals Service stated that it is investigating the matter but has not responded regarding whether it will continue to work with CMDSS. Previously, CMDSS faced criticism from competitors when awarded the contract, who claimed the company lacked SEC credentials and had potential conflicts of interest. However, the Office of Federal Oversight ruled that the contract was appropriate.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
U.S. Marshals' cryptocurrency wallet stolen by internal personnel, $24.9 million
ChainCatcher reports that the U.S. Marshals Service is under intense scrutiny after its managed federal cryptocurrency wallets were hacked in 2024, resulting in approximately $24.9 million being stolen. According to security researcher ZachXBT, suspect John Daghita inadvertently revealed on Telegram that he controls the stolen funds. More notably, John is believed to be the son of Dean Daghita, CEO of CMDSS, a company that secured a $4 million contract with the Marshals Service in 2024 to assist with the sale of U.S. Bitcoin reserves.
The Marshals Service stated that it is investigating the matter but has not responded regarding whether it will continue to work with CMDSS. Previously, CMDSS faced criticism from competitors when awarded the contract, who claimed the company lacked SEC credentials and had potential conflicts of interest. However, the Office of Federal Oversight ruled that the contract was appropriate.