A federal court in the Northern Mariana Islands has sentenced Sze Man Yu Inos, also known as Yuki, to 71 months in prison for a wire fraud scheme built around false bitcoin investment claims and personal trust. The case, which prosecutors said targeted older women in Saipan, Guam, and later other U.S. jurisdictions, is being presented by federal authorities as a clear example of affinity fraud: a form of financial deception that exploits emotional closeness, shared identity, or perceived personal bonds.
The sentence was handed down on April 23, 2026, by Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. In addition to the prison term, the court ordered three years of supervised release, 100 hours of community service, $769,355.67 in restitution, and a $200 special assessment. The court also entered a separate criminal forfeiture money judgment of $684,848.34.
False Wealth Claims and Bitcoin Promises
According to prosecutors, Inos approached older women between November 2020 and January 2022 and built credibility by presenting herself as financially successful and socially connected. She allegedly told victims that she came from a wealthy family in China, owned multiple businesses, and had made substantial money through bitcoin investing. Those claims, authorities said, were used to create an image of sophistication, stability, and investment success.
Federal prosecutors argued that these representations were not casual boasts but key tools in the fraud itself. By portraying herself as someone with privileged access to wealth and profitable crypto experience, Inos allegedly persuaded victims to send her money and participate in purported bitcoin-related opportunities. The government’s description of the case suggests that the digital asset angle was not merely incidental, but central to the credibility of the narrative she sold to victims.
How Trust Was Built Before Money Was Requested
Authorities said the scheme relied heavily on relationship-building rather than only direct financial solicitation. Prosecutors described how Inos used expensive meals, gifts, and emotionally charged personal stories to gain victims’ confidence over time. She allegedly cultivated intimacy, made the women feel valued, and then positioned herself as someone who could be trusted with sensitive financial matters.
In court filings and public statements, prosecutors said she often reinforced that emotional bond with language such as, “You are like my mom.” That detail is significant because it illustrates the prosecution’s broader framing of the case: this was not only an investment fraud, but one rooted in emotional manipulation. Victims were not simply pitched a financial product; they were drawn into a relationship in which the request for money appeared personal, urgent, and trustworthy.
After that trust had been established, prosecutors said Inos requested funds and solicited bitcoin investments under false pretenses. She also allegedly invented personal problems to encourage financial help from victims who had come to view her as someone close to them. The government’s theory was that emotional dependence and fabricated hardship were used in tandem with false promises of financial sophistication and crypto success.
Victims and Losses Spanning Multiple Jurisdictions
Although the conduct began in Saipan and Guam, federal authorities said the fraud later expanded geographically. The scheme ultimately reached additional victims in Washington and California, adding to the overall financial harm and broadening the case beyond the Northern Mariana Islands. Prosecutors said the losses affected dozens of innocent victims across several states.
That multi-jurisdictional reach was an important part of the government’s messaging after sentencing. U.S. Attorney Shawn N. Anderson warned that criminals engaged in affinity fraud prey on people’s willingness to trust others. His statement underscored the concern that the most dangerous scams are often not the most technically sophisticated, but the ones that weaponize social instincts, emotional vulnerability, and personal relationships.
The case also reflects a recurring enforcement theme in crypto-related fraud matters: digital assets may be used as the investment story or the hook, but the underlying mechanics often look very similar to traditional confidence scams. In such cases, the fraud is powered less by blockchain complexity and more by deception, psychological pressure, and fabricated credibility.
Forgery Allegations Add to the Severity of the Case
Federal investigators said the misconduct went beyond false statements about wealth and investments. The FBI stated that Inos also forged the signature of a federal judge in order to facilitate her schemes. That allegation added a serious institutional dimension to the case, suggesting not only deception directed at victims but also an attempt to misuse the appearance of judicial authority.
FBI Honolulu Special Agent in Charge David Porter said the defendant’s conduct demonstrated contempt both for the victims and for the rule of law. The remark highlights why the case drew a strong law enforcement response: it combined financial exploitation of older victims, interstate harm, and alleged forgery tied to a federal official’s signature.
Sentencing Sends a Broader Warning
The final sentence leaves Inos facing prison time, supervised release, community service obligations, restitution, and forfeiture. Prosecutors also said she continued engaging in scams while the case was pending, a factor that likely reinforced the government’s portrayal of her as an ongoing threat to the public. Taken together, the penalties reflect both the amount of financial loss and the court’s view of the seriousness of the conduct.
From a policy and regulatory perspective, the case serves as a warning about how crypto-themed fraud can be packaged in familiar social forms. The promises may involve bitcoin, fast returns, or elite investment access, but the warning signs remain classic: unverifiable success stories, urgent requests for money, emotional pressure, and appeals to trust over documentation.
For older investors in particular, the case is a reminder that fraud risk often emerges through personal relationships rather than anonymous internet channels alone. Family-like language, gifts, repeated attention, and claims of shared hardship can all be used to lower skepticism. Once that skepticism drops, references to bitcoin or private investment opportunities can appear more credible than they actually are.
The investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Garth R. Backe for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands. Federal officials have framed the matter as more than an isolated criminal sentencing. In their view, it is a public warning that trust-based fraud remains a major threat, especially when paired with the allure of cryptocurrency wealth and the vulnerability of older victims.
As enforcement agencies continue to focus on crypto-related scams, this case stands out for one reason in particular: the damage did not begin with technology. It began with trust.