Seoul Prosecutors Allege Poisoned Coffee in Bitcoin Dispute, 39-Year-Old Charged With Attempted Murder

A crypto partnership in Seoul has turned into a criminal case that reads like a cautionary tale about off-chain risk. Prosecutors say a 39-year-old man, referred to as Mr. A, faces attempted murder and Pesticide Control Act violations after allegedly slipping methomyl—a banned, highly toxic insecticide—into his business partner’s coffee on November 23 at a café near Seokchon Lake in Songpa-gu.

Authorities allege the target, identified as Mr. B, collapsed after drinking the coffee, was rushed to intensive care, and regained consciousness three days later. He has told local media he was on the verge of marriage, with his spouse early in pregnancy, and that the incident nearly shattered his family. He says he is recovering but still requires medical treatment.

The pair reportedly began working together in 2022, pooling and managing funds through Bitcoin investment programs. Prosecutors say tensions escalated after Mr. A personally invested 1.17 billion won (about $811,000) and failed to recover it. It remains unclear whether those funds were misplaced, locked out, or victimized by theft or a scam. Authorities also say Mr. B took over management duties in September, after which Mr. A is believed to have started planning the attack. In a detail that raises difficult questions about motive, prosecutors further allege Mr. A purchased the poison before the investment loss was realized.

The market backdrop likely compounded stress: Bitcoin had retreated roughly 35% from its October peak of $126,080 by late November, when the alleged poisoning occurred. Drawdowns like that often surface latent governance flaws and test personal relationships attached to pooled capital.

This case tracks with a broader shift in crypto-related threats from pure code exploits to “wrench risk”—coercion and physical violence aimed at forcing access to wallets. A recent CertiK analysis pointed to a 75% year-over-year increase in such physical attacks, with more than $40.9 million in confirmed losses in 2025. Incidents cited include a home invasion that targeted a crypto executive’s family in France, the jailing of UK teenagers who robbed $4.3 million at knifepoint, and a kidnapping-murder in Spain where attackers allegedly tried to compel wallet unlocks.

The through line is not blockchain vulnerability; it’s human fragility under financial pressure and poor controls. Informal partnerships and lightly documented mandates create ambiguity around decision rights, risk limits, and recourse—especially when one partner “manages” and another “funds.” That ambiguity can metastasize when markets turn, setting the stage for blame, paranoia, and in rare cases, violence.

Veteran operators design for this human layer. They don’t rely on trust alone; they engineer it: - Segregate investor and manager funds, with auditable on-chain paths and read-only transparency. - Implement multi-signature custody with time locks and spending limits; give no single person unilateral control. - Use policies that slow down large transfers (cooling-off periods, external approvals) precisely when emotions run hottest. - Formalize duties, risk tolerances, and dispute resolution in binding agreements; clarity often prevents escalation. - Train teams on personal security and travel protocols; physical safety is part of crypto custody, not an afterthought.

The ethical dimension is inescapable: when capital becomes identity, downturns can trigger catastrophic responses. Good structure creates space between a bad trade and a bad act.

For now, this remains a criminal proceeding. The first hearing is slated for March 10 at the Seoul Eastern District Court. Prosecutors say the case involves an attempted murder charge, the alleged use of methomyl in a café setting, and a partnership that unraveled amid a major Bitcoin drawdown. Whether the fund losses stemmed from mismanagement, loss of access, or external malfeasance may be clarified in court, but the operational lesson is already plain. Crypto doesn’t forgive weak governance—and neither does real life when money, trust, and fear collide.