Victims of the Jubi case should stop putting their first effort into finding people and start focusing on the money itself. That was the core point made by rights protection expert Darcy, known online as @DarcyAri from FlashRescue, in an interview with Wu Shuo. His view is simple: fund recovery depends more on tracing and freezing assets than on chasing individuals across borders.
Jubi's collapse exposed a deeper custody problem
The source describes Jubi, also called JuCoin, as an older Chinese crypto exchange launched around 2013 to 2014. In September 2025, its token JU dropped about 70% within minutes, falling from near $24 to around $7, while daily trading volume exceeded $1 billion.
By 2026, the platform was accused of freezing withdrawals, force-converting user funds, and claiming reserves that were later exposed as fake. The result, according to the source material, was that most user balances were wiped out. This was no longer just a token crash. It had become a direct asset access and custody crisis for users.
Why tracing individuals may fail while tracing funds may still work
Darcy argued that going after specific people tied to Jubi is usually the less effective route. Relevant staff and company entities are said to be located overseas, far from where many victims live, which creates difficult jurisdictional and legal barriers. Cases like this move slowly. Crypto funds do not.
By the time investigators or lawyers identify and reach the people involved, the assets may already have been transferred, mixed, or converted. That time gap matters. In practical terms, a recovery effort centered on the money trail has a stronger chance of producing results than one built around a long search for responsible individuals.
Binance and Cobo are cited as important points in the fund trail
The source says some funds linked to Jubi have already entered the systems of Binance and Cobo. That detail stands out because assets that remain on-chain or inside a custody institution are still visible in records. Visibility matters. It creates room for tracing and, in some cases, freezing.
Darcy's point was that funds sitting inside Binance or Cobo can still be identified on the record, and such systems may act on freeze requests when fraud is confirmed. If the money is still on-chain, there is still a traceable path. Once assets move completely outside those observable channels, the odds of recovery fall quickly.
The action list starts with filing a case
According to Darcy, the first concrete step for victims is to file a formal case. That is not a procedural detail. It creates the legal basis needed to request a freeze from platforms that may be holding the funds. Without formal documentation, even a platform that spots suspicious assets may lack grounds to act.
After that, victims need to identify which platforms currently hold the affected funds and press for freezes before the assets move again. Speed is central here. Crypto can move between wallets and platforms within minutes, which means delay can erase the narrow window in which recovery is still possible. The priority order in the source is clear: file immediately, identify where the funds are, then push for a freeze.
No promise of full recovery, only a more realistic route
Darcy did not offer broad guarantees that all victims would recover their losses in full. What he presented was a practical route in a messy situation: move quickly, establish a legal case, follow the fund trail, and target assets that remain inside systems where intervention may still be possible. In this framework, chasing unreachable individuals comes second.
For those affected by the Jubi case, the message from the interview is direct. The clearest opening is to act fast on the funds that can still be seen and potentially frozen, rather than spending the early stage of the recovery effort on a long hunt for people who may already be out of reach.