Frosties: Nguyen’s plea and forfeiture confirmed in court order
Nguyen’s March 2025 court order records a guilty plea and $578,899.65 forfeiture. Read the separate Llacuna reporting and later-record limits.
Record limits · Nguyen’s March 2025 plea and forfeiture are verified in the reproduced court order. A January 2026 amended forfeiture order is listed, but its full text was not obtained. Llacuna’s plea remains attributed to courtroom reporting; complete sentencing judgments for both defendants were not obtained.
- Cited claims
- 5
- Source records
- 5
- Edition revision
- 3
In this investigation
Nguyen’s plea is recorded in a court order
A consent preliminary forfeiture order dated 11 March 2025 in United States v. Nguyen, S1 24 Cr. 671 (RA), records Ethan Nguyen’s guilty plea to conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The court text, reproduced by CaseMine, also records his agreement to forfeit $578,899.65. This is a documented development beyond the original 2022 complaint, not an inference from another defendant’s testimony.
What the original charge alleged
The 2022 DOJ announcement accused Ethan Nguyen and Andre Llacuna of abandoning the Frosties NFT project after its sale and moving roughly $1.1 million in cryptocurrency proceeds. It described promised holder benefits and the closure of project channels. That complaint was an allegation-stage document. Its wording and potential penalties must remain attached to that date, rather than being presented as the court’s final findings or sentence.
The later account concerns Llacuna individually
The Rage’s July 2025 courtroom account reports that Andre Llacuna pleaded guilty to wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. That report is distinct from Nguyen’s court order. It does not supply Llacuna’s complete plea agreement or sentencing judgment. We do not infer his current sentence from a report written during the Storm trial or state that sentencing remains pending today.
Forfeiture is not a purchaser refund
The March order concerns forfeiture to the United States. Its $578,899.65 figure should not be described as money already returned to NFT holders or as the full amount of every purchaser’s compensable loss. Leagle also lists an amended final forfeiture order dated 5 January 2026 in Nguyen’s case. Its full text was not obtained, so this edition does not infer the amendment’s effect or present the March order as the last docket entry.
How the Storm filing is used
ECF 230 in United States v. Storm, No. 1:23-cr-00430, is a defence submission seeking acquittal in that separate prosecution. Page 51 refers to Llacuna’s testimony. We use it as a traceable reference to that testimony, not as a judicial finding accepting the defence’s arguments and not as a Frosties judgment. The distinction matters when a legal document is quoted outside the case in which it was filed.
Frosties proceeds and the proposed Embers sale
DOJ also described preparations for a separate Embers NFT sale at the time of the arrests. Its anticipated proceeds were a projection; they should not be added to the stated Frosties proceeds as an additional completed loss. Distinguishing an alleged completed transfer from a planned sale prevents an inflated combined figure. Any claim about recovered funds or payments to holders would require its own dated record.
Record checked on 25 October 2026
Nguyen’s March 2025 plea and forfeiture are verified in the reproduced court order. A January 2026 amended forfeiture order is listed, but its full text was not obtained. Llacuna’s plea remains attributed to courtroom reporting; complete sentencing judgments for both defendants were not obtained.
Evidence & sources
- Filed allegation
DOJ's March 2022 complaint announcement alleged that Frosties promoters abandoned promised benefits, transferred proceeds and prepared a second collection called Embers.
Supporting excerpt: Two Defendants Charged In Non-Fungible Token (“NFT”) Fraud And Money Laundering Scheme
preparing to launch the sale of a second set of NFTs advertised as “Embers,”
Two Defendants Charged In Non-Fungible Token (“NFT”) Fraud And Money Laundering Scheme ↗ - Adjudicated finding
The court’s 11 March 2025 consent forfeiture order records Ethan Nguyen’s guilty plea to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and his agreement to forfeit $578,899.65. The reproduced order concerns Nguyen individually.
Supporting excerpt: SDNY, Nguyen: consent preliminary forfeiture order, 11 March 2025, ECF 40 (court text reproduced by CaseMine)
the Defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Information
SDNY, Nguyen: consent preliminary forfeiture order, 11 March 2025, ECF 40 (court text reproduced by CaseMine) ↗ - Source reported
Leagle lists an amended final forfeiture order as to specific property dated 5 January 2026 in Nguyen’s case. Only the public listing was reviewed, not the full amended order.
Supporting excerpt: Leagle listing: Nguyen amended final forfeiture order, 5 January 2026 (full text not obtained)
AMENDED FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE AS TO SPECIFIC PROPERTY
Leagle listing: Nguyen amended final forfeiture order, 5 January 2026 (full text not obtained) ↗ - Source reported
The Rage’s July 2025 courtroom report states that Andre Llacuna pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money-laundering conspiracy. This is reported status, not a reviewed Frosties judgment.
Supporting excerpt: The Rage, 17 July 2025: courtroom reporting on Llacuna (secondary source)
Llacuna pled guilty to wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
The Rage, 17 July 2025: courtroom reporting on Llacuna (secondary source) ↗ - Source reported
Roman Storm’s defence memorandum filed on 30 September 2025 references Llacuna’s trial testimony. It is a party submission in Storm’s case, not a judgment in the Frosties prosecution.
Supporting excerpt: Storm defence memorandum, ECF 230, page 51: reference to Llacuna testimony (party filing, not a judgment)
Llacuna and Ahmed testified that they did not have to log in to Tornado Cash.
Storm defence memorandum, ECF 230, page 51: reference to Llacuna testimony (party filing, not a judgment) ↗
