Kohli, Former Promoter of Ethereum-based Saitama Token, Loses Extradition Appeal to Face Charges in the U.S.
UK Judge Samuel Goozee rejected the extradition appeal of Manpreet Kohli, former head of Saitama, who will face charges related to telecom fraud and market manipulation in the U.S.
Kohli, a 45-year-old Indian national residing in the UK, previously led the company promoting the Saitama token on the Ethereum blockchain; at its peak, the token had a market value of approximately $7.5 billion.
U.S. prosecutors allege that Kohli and over ten accomplices publicly claimed to hold and continuously buy Saitama tokens while privately selling them for millions of dollars in profit; prosecutors claim Kohli profited about $20 million from these activities. These charges are pending in U.S. court, and Kohli has not been convicted.
Kohli was arrested in London in 2024. The case stems from an FBI sting operation: the FBI set up and operated digital tokens to identify participants in the crypto market suspected of false trading, pump-and-dump schemes, and market manipulation.
After rejecting his defense on August 19, the judge referred the case to the UK government minister to decide whether to issue an extradition order; Reuters reports that this step is usually procedural, but Kohli still retains the right to appeal and is currently out on bail set at £200,000.
In terms of market mechanisms, the direct trading target of the Saitama case is no longer a mainstream liquid asset, but the enforcement impact will extend to the token market that relies on project promotion, internal wallet trading, and the narrative of "team continuous buying." Buyers will place greater importance on on-chain wallet ownership, unlocking, and the sources of actual transactions; project parties, market makers, and token issuers with insufficient disclosure in public marketing will face higher scrutiny, compliance, and liquidity discount pressures.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Saitama expanded during the 2021 bull market with a "community token" narrative, and its token price and trading volume heavily relied on social media dissemination, exchange listing expectations, and project roadmaps. If the U.S. prosecutors' claim of "publicly stating holdings or purchases while privately selling continuously" is proven in court, it represents a typical information asymmetry path in the crypto market: the team has internal advantages in wallet ownership, token distribution, and promotional timing, while external traders can only infer supply changes from public statements. Unlike traditional securities markets, there is usually no unified periodic holding disclosure system in the early stages of token issuance, and on-chain visibility does not equate to identifiable identity.
The enforcement resource path in this case is unique: the FBI not only tracks existing token transactions but also establishes digital tokens to guide suspected manipulators in demonstrating service capabilities. This method aligns with the Justice Department's previous investigations into crypto market making, wash trading, and false liquidity cases, focusing not on whether a particular token fails but on whether participants package fake transactions, false buy orders, or concealed sell-offs as sellable "market services." Once the counterparty is an undercover enforcement agency, chat records, wallet paths, and quoting methods can transform originally difficult-to-prove subjective intentions into a chain of evidence.
Similar cases include the 2024 U.S. Justice Department's prosecution of personnel related to several crypto market-making and token projects, which also involved running a token named NexFundAI during the investigation. This case revolves around wash trading and false trading volume, indicating that regulation has shifted from post-fact accountability based on price crashes to proactively entering the liquidity and market-making service supply chain. Saitama is at the intersection of this regulatory upgrade: project leaders, promoters, and market-making service providers can no longer simply cut off responsibility for market structure by claiming "on-chain transactions occur voluntarily."
Essentially, this represents a regulatory change: the enforcement focus is shifting from the single-point debate of "whether a token is a security" to fraudulent statements, price manipulation, and false transactions that are prohibited in any market. The mechanism at play is that the cross-border issuance of crypto assets, anonymous wallets, and fragmented trading venues have previously raised the cost of evidence collection; however, on-chain fund trails, centralized exchange identity data, and undercover trading can reassemble the controllers and trading behaviors. In the future, the risk premium of tokens will depend not only on technology or narrative but also on whether the issuer can prove that their wallet behavior aligns with public promotion.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
On-chain visibility does not equal real transactions
Promotion creates buy orders, wallets determine supply
Liquidity can be fabricated, but evidence chains are hard to fake