Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Finance & Accounting · Financial decision · 2016–2024

The founder of ezBtc funnelled $13M of customer crypto into personal gambling

ezBtc founder David Smillie diverted 935.46 BTC and 159 ETH of customer crypto into gambling; BCSC banned him and ordered $18.4M in sanctions.

ezBtc · 2024-12

What happened

ezBtc was a British Columbia cryptocurrency trading platform that held customers' digital assets in custody. Through its chief executive and founder David Smillie, the company took in Bitcoin and Ethereum from customers who expected the assets to be held safely and returned on request.

Instead, between 2016 and 2024 Smillie diverted 935.46 Bitcoin and 159 Ethereum belonging to ezBtc customers — worth roughly $13 million, about a third of the platform's assets — into online gambling and personal spending. Customers who asked to withdraw their crypto found it gone.

The British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) investigated and found the funds had been misappropriated. In December 2024 it imposed sanctions totalling about $18.4 million, comprising roughly $10.4 million in restitution to harmed customers and an $8 million administrative penalty.

Smillie was permanently banned from participating in the securities and crypto markets in British Columbia. The case became a cautionary example of the custodial risk that was endemic to lightly regulated crypto exchanges that held customer funds alongside operator access.

Why it happened

  • ezBtc held customer crypto in wallets its own founder controlled, giving one person the ability to move assets without any independent segregation or oversight.
  • There was no custody separation or audit trail strong enough to stop or quickly detect the diversion between 2016 and 2024.
  • Customers had no practical claim on the missing assets until the regulator stepped in, and even then restitution covered only a portion of the harm.
What it cost~$13M customer crypto diverted; $18.4M BCSC sanctionscostly

The lesson

A custody business is only as safe as the person holding the keys — customer assets and operator access in one wallet leaves no control that substitutes for independent custody.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →