Level 2, ‘The Fort’, HardRocks Business Park, Burmarrad Road, Naxxar, NXR 6345
Crypto Casino is an independent platform providing unbiased information about online crypto casinos, games, and bonuses. We are not owned or operated by any gambling provider. All reviews, rankings, and guides are written by our expert team based on honest analysis and the latest available data.
Copyright©Crypto.Casino Ltd. 2026. All Rights Reserved
The rise of wrench attacks in crypto turning to violence, attackers are attacking in the real world rather than hacking the system.
Jan 7, 2026
Criminals are now turning to physical attacks instead of hacking to obtain cryptocurrency, going as far as kidnapping, home invasions, and using threats or coercion to force a crypto transfer.
One of the most prominent cases occurred in January 2025, when David Balland, the cofounder of Ledger, a major hardware wallet company, and his partner, were abducted from their home by a criminal group. The criminals were not trying to hack Mr. Balland's company, Ledger, or breach its systems. Instead, they physically terrorized Balland in an effort to obtain cryptocurrency ransom payments. Balland was a target due to his well-known ties with the crypto industry rather than any technical vulnerability in Ledger’s products.
While this abduction transpired, the victims were taken to different locations and were then subjected to extreme physical coercion with intentions to pressure them to adhere to the demands for cryptocurrency ransom. French authorities indicated that this violence was part of a blackmailing attempt linked to cryptocurrency payments. French police spearheaded a widespread operation involving elite task forces, inevitably rescuing both victims within 48 hours of the abduction. Multiple suspects were apprehended and charged with organized kidnapping and extortion. French authorities concluded that parts of the ransom attempt were traceable, exposing the promise and the boundaries of cryptocurrency for criminal use.
This case drew major attention internationally because it exemplified a core mechanic in modern crypto crime: as digital resilience strengthens, some criminals have turned to physical coercion and violence, often targeting individuals rather than infrastructure. Cyber threat researchers and investigative reporters widely referenced this incident as a notorious example of a so-called “wrench attack,” where physical duress supersedes digital intrusion.
Balland’s abduction is not an isolated event. It's part of an accelerating pattern of crypto-related abductions. As cryptocurrency has become more fortified, online specialists say that an accelerated volume of crimes, "wrench attacks," are transitioning from online hacking to offline violence as a primary way of larceny.
A wrench attack is a form of physical extortion where a criminal uses real-world violence or threats instead of digital breaches to force someone to hand over their cryptocurrency information, private keys, seed phrases, or passwords, in order to obtain their cryptocurrency for themselves. This term comes from a security metaphor (the $5 wrench) stating that even the sturdiest cryptography falls short if someone can apply physical duress to a key holder to give up a secret. Wrench attacks are offline and immediate as well as violent and threatening, bypassing all technical defenses.
Wrench attacks are commonly addressed among cryptocurrency contexts, attackers may coerce victims to reveal their private keys, seed phrases, or authorize an irreversible transaction. They also can occur in a corporate espionage or high-value individual setting, such as an attacker forcing a victim to unlock their devices or provide them with system access.
What characterizes a wrench attack is that the victim technically sanctions access, but does so through coercion, therefore making conventional security controls non-functional. In conclusion, wrench attacks seem to highlight a weakness in security systems meaning protecting data is overall meaningless if the person who has access is physically coerced.
Wrench attacks are increasing because assets and system access is now controlled solely by individuals rather than institutions, therefore making people the easiest path of least resistance.
However, at the same time digital security has become stronger, in turn pushing attackers away from hacking and toward physical coercion instead, which circumvents digital safeguards entirely.
Several factors are driving this trend, including:
Instant, irreversible transactions
Greater public visibility of wealth or privileged access
Low barriers to execution combined with high potential payouts
In short, attackers will follow the path of least resistance: which is easier and more profitable to attack a person rather than a system.
Another key factor of why wrench attacks have become more common is the rising crypto prices and renewed interest in crypto; they both raise the reward and the visibility of potential targets, while maintaining the existing architectural framework unaltered.
Higher prices equal higher payoffs per victim. When crypto prices rise, wallets that were once modest in value can suddenly be worth more. One single coerced transaction can ultimately yield transformative sums. This increases the relative utility of physical duress to other crimes.
Resurgent attention also widens the vulnerability surface. Bull markets tend to bring new users with weaker security habits, returning users who could be rusty or overconfident, and more people self-custodying assets, thereby giving attackers more potential victims.
Public visibility that signals crypto wealth has become more common, increasing wrench attacks, by linking real identities to apparent wealth or access, which make individuals easier to identify and locate offline. During bull markets people tend to overshare by posting about their involvement, appearing at public events, and leaving digital traces such as routines and locations. Criminals do not need certainty; the mere assumption of wealth is a sufficient driver. Once a person becomes discernible and trackable, physical coercion could become a feasible course of action by an attacker, regardless of how efficient their digital security is.
Ultimately, wrench attacks spotlight a simple factuality: no amount of cryptography can protect against physical coercion, as long as people remain sole custodians of high-value cryptocurrencies attackers will continue to pursue the human rather than a system.
Wrench attacks target individuals who are believed to have access to valuable, easily transferable assets or privileged access, rather than technical systems.
Those at elevated risk include:
Individuals who self-custody cryptocurrency
Founders, executives, and early investors
Content creators and public figures associated with crypto
Anyone publicly linked to high-value digital assets
Those who are at higher risk of wrench attacks also include founders, executives, investors, and content creators who are linked publicly to crypto or high-valued assets. Public visibility through online platforms such as social media, making media appearances, or being present at industry events can make individuals easier to locate and identify in turn becoming a potential target.
Attackers also can exploit market cycles during bull markets, a new user who has limited security experience or a returning user who could be complacent or rusty extend the pool of potential victims. In most cases, attackers act simply on assumed wealth and not confirmed holdings. As soon as a person is identifiable and physically able to be accessed, they could be a favorable target regardless of their actual asset standing.
In response to the rise of wrench attacks, crypto holders are adjusting their behavior by shifting attention from digital security alone to personal safety and enhancing situational awareness.
Common behavioral shifts include:
Reducing public discussion of crypto holdings
Limiting social media exposure and location sharing
Avoiding direct links between real-world identity and digital assets
Reassessing self-custody practices
Distributing access across multiple wallets or trusted parties
Many crypto holders have become more cautious about bringing attention to their holdings, limiting their social media activity and posting, as well as avoiding any public links between their identity and their crypto wealth.
Some are also reevaluating how they store their assets, rather than keeping assets under the control of one singular individual or device crypto holders are using asset allocation techniques and exposure reduction strategies. Many crypto holders have become discreet about disclosing their holdings, limiting social media activity and avoiding connections between real-world identity to crypto assets.
This marks a paradigm shift in crypto security awareness, with increased understanding that strong encryption offers very little security or protection against physical coercion, conversations with the crypto community heighten focus on target hardening, total life security, and real-world risk conspicuously when the market is hot.
Wrench attacks can affect crypto gambling inferentially rather than explicitly. The risk comes from how gambling winnings are held and signaled, not from gambling itself. Crypto gambling may increase exposure to wrench attacks because it often involves lump-sum payouts controlled directly by individuals. When winnings are self-custodied, one person may have instant access to transferable funds, making them a potential target for physical coercion.
Public visibility also plays a role. Gambling platforms, leaderboards, social media posts, and knowledge-sharing hubs can unintentionally signal recent wins or high balances, linking real identities to perceived wealth. Attackers do not require confirmation; the outward manifestation of a substantial payout is often enough to attract attention.
Risk is elevated during bull markets, when crypto prices rise and gambling activity increases. Larger stakes magnify potential rewards for attackers without changing the underlying security model.
That said, crypto gambling does not introduce a new category of threat. It inherits the same risks faced by any individual who self-custodies liquid crypto assets, particularly when accessibility and visibility are high. The root issue remains the same: high-value target density combined with physical visibility can make coercion a feasible exploit path regardless of how the crypto was obtained.
No. Wrench attacks are offline, physical attacks—not hacks, phishing, or scams. Attackers target people, not systems.
Bull markets raise asset values, increase public visibility to attackers, and bring in new and returning participants, expanding the potential target pool without changing the underlying security model.
No. Crypto itself is not the problem, but it is especially exposed due to assets being liquid, irreversible, and often controlled by a single individual.
A bull market is a period of rising prices fueled by bullish sentiment, increased participation, and expectations of further gains.
Less often. Exchanges and institutions distribute control across teams and systems, making single-individual coercion more difficult.
Security systems assume the user is acting freely. Wrench attacks exploit the fact that authorization under duress appears identical to voluntary authorization.
Law enforcement agencies face challenges due to underreporting, jurisdictional issues, and irreversible transfers. Awareness is growing, however, as these crimes become more visible.
