A Chinese newspaper has warned readers that scammers are invoking its name to run a Bitcoin extortion scam, using the publication’s reputation to make threats and payment demands appear legitimate. The warning came from the newspaper itself, not from the fraudsters, and centers on name-based impersonation rather than any genuine involvement by the publication.
According to information surfaced through the paper’s own coverage of digital assets, the core of the incident is impersonation: the scam attaches a trusted media brand to an extortion demand payable in Bitcoin. The outlet’s reporting on cryptocurrency topics can be reviewed directly on its Bitcoin coverage page, which is where readers can confirm what the publication has and has not said. For related coverage, see Doug Casey Warns Iran War Could Spiral Into Prolonged Crisis, Reshaping Markets and Global Power.
The distinction matters. The newspaper is the party issuing the alert, cautioning that any message claiming to represent it while demanding Bitcoin is not authorized by the publication. Impersonation of this kind does not indicate the outlet’s participation in the scheme. For related coverage, see Binance Stock Trading Services Upgrade Set for August 1, 2026.
How a name-based extortion demand is built to look credible
Name-based crypto extortion works by borrowing authority. Attaching a recognized media name to a message is intended to raise its perceived legitimacy, making a recipient more likely to treat a threat as real before verifying who actually sent it.
Such schemes typically lean on pressure tactics: urgency, a threat of exposure or harm, and a demand for payment within a short window. Bitcoin features in these narratives because it can be transferred quickly and directly between parties, which suits an attacker seeking immediate payment.
None of this implies wrongdoing by the newspaper whose name is being used. Impersonation is a misuse of the brand against both the public and the publication itself, similar to how China’s crypto environment has drawn scrutiny in other contexts, from US-China policy pressures shaping Bitcoin sentiment to broader questions about how Chinese institutions engage with digital assets.
What readers and potential targets should watch for
The existence of a public warning suggests the newspaper is concerned about reader confusion and misuse of its reputation. That concern is the practical takeaway: a message carrying a familiar name is not, on its own, proof the message is authentic.
Verify before reacting. Any communication claiming to speak for the newspaper and requesting Bitcoin should be checked against the outlet’s official channels rather than acted on under time pressure. Impersonation scams depend on recipients responding before they confirm the sender.
Do not send Bitcoin in response to threats or unverified claims. The same caution applies across the market during periods when attention on the asset is elevated, such as when Bitcoin trading thins around the Lunar New Year, or when headlines around spot Bitcoin ETF flows keep the asset in the news and give impersonators a timely hook.
For follow-up, monitor the publication’s official channels for any clarification or additional statement. A search limited to the outlet’s own domain, such as this site-restricted query, is one way to check whether the warning has been expanded or updated before treating any related message as genuine.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.
