The Scam Farms Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act of 2025 proposes to allow the President of the United States to issue letters of marque to hire 'neo-privateers' to pursue, seize assets, and punish cybercriminals threatening national security.
The bill revives a mechanism from the 18th century, paving the way for public-private cooperation in hunting cybercriminals, while linking to the asset seizure mechanism that can supplement the Bitcoin reserves and the national cryptocurrency reserve under the new decree.
MAIN CONTENT
The bill grants the President the authority to issue letters of marque to mobilize armed private forces against cybercrime.
Targets include: cryptocurrency theft, pig butchering scams, ransomware, identity theft, unauthorized intrusions, password trading, deploying malware.
Seized assets can legally be added to the Bitcoin/national reserves, in the context of $142 million lost in July and over $3 billion since early 2025.
What is the Scam Farms Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act of 2025?
This is a bill introduced by Arizona Congressman David Schweikert in August, allowing the President of the United States to issue letters of marque for armed private forces to address cybercrime threatening the U.S.
The bill views scams, extortion, and data theft campaigns as similar to 'acts of war' against the United States. If passed, it could reshape how the U.S. coordinates with the private sector in capturing, seizing assets, and defending cyberspace with specific legal mechanisms.
What are neo-privateers in the context of the bill?
Neo-privateers are private entities authorized, equipped, and contracted by the state to carry out cybercrime missions under the letter of marque.
Unlike typical cybersecurity contractors, neo-privateers have the right to 'use all reasonable means necessary' to seize assets, detain, or 'punish' individuals identified by the President as threats. This mechanism emphasizes responsibility under state contracting, federal oversight, and specific authorized operational scope in the letter of marque.
What powers does the bill grant the President?
The bill allows the President to issue letters of marque to 'armed and equipped private individuals' to capture, seize assets, and impose penalties on cybercriminals identified as threats.
The letter of marque can stipulate the target, scope, limits, and manner of using force 'to the extent reasonably necessary'. In enforcement, assets seized during an investigation can be declared forfeited by the court and transferred to the government under the current civil/criminal process of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ Asset Forfeiture Program).
What actions are targeted as threats?
The categories include: cryptocurrency theft, pig butchering scams, ransomware attacks, identity theft, unauthorized access to obtain sensitive/confidential data, online password trading, and deploying malware to control computers.
The bill identifies these threats as unusual, serious, and detrimental to economic and national security. The practical context: in July, cryptocurrency losses due to hackers exceeded $142 million; from early 2025 to now, the amount stolen has surpassed $3 billion, indicating the scale and acceleration of cross-border cybercrime.
"Criminal enterprises using cybercrime and forced labor pose an unusual and serious threat to the economic and national security of the United States."
– H.R. 4988, 119th Congress, 08/2025, US Congress
Why is this a revival of letters of marque from the 18th century?
The bill restores the letters of marque mechanism that was used in the 18th century, allowing private individuals to act on behalf of the nation in times of war and seize enemy assets.
In the digital environment, the 'opponent' includes cybercrime organizations and possibly state-sponsored groups. The revival of this historical tool sets a special precedent: the state delegates part of its coercive power to the private sector in cyberspace, requiring high standards of oversight and accountability.
"Congress has the power to declare war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
– U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11
What are the legal, human rights, and oversight implications?
Authorizing private individuals to use force and seize assets poses risks of abuse, mis-targeting, and cross-border jurisdiction disputes.
An independent audit framework, transparent targeting criteria, mission approval processes, and clear limits on the use of force, especially in the many-party digital space, are needed. Mechanisms for complaints, compensation, and compliance with international law/extradition treaties are essential to avoid legal conflicts.
How can seized assets flow into the national Bitcoin reserve?
The decree signed by President Donald Trump in January established the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency reserves of the United States, which can only be accumulated under a budget-neutral strategy or through asset seizures.
Thus, if the bill is passed, seizures resulting from the actions of authorized forces, after court forfeiture declarations, can be added to the national cryptocurrency reserves. This is a legalization channel for recovering digital assets from crime, linked to a reserve strategy that does not put pressure on the budget.
What do recent seizures illustrate?
In July, the U.S. government filed a civil lawsuit to claim ownership of over 20 Bitcoin (BTC), valued at more than $2.3 million, seized by the FBI Dallas in a campaign targeting the Chaos ransomware group. In the same month, the DOJ seized $1 million from the BlackSuit group.
In August, the DOJ authorized the seizure of $2.8 million in cryptocurrency from a wallet controlled by Ianis Aleksandrovich Antropenko, who has been indicted for a ransomware attack. These events illustrate the value chain: investigation, seizure, court processing, and the ability to transfer assets into reserves under the current legal framework.
Potential impacts on cybersecurity and the private sector?
If enforced strictly, the model could increase pressure on cybercrime supply chains, cut off financial resources, and deter globally.
However, the private sector needs digital investigation capabilities, incident response, evidence custody chains, and liability insurance. Coordination with federal authorities, technical standards, and intelligence sharing must be synchronized to avoid overlaps, mis-targeting, or unintended escalation risks.
How does it compare to existing tools (FBI/DOJ, bug bounty, OFAC)?
Existing tools such as federal investigation, asset seizure, OFAC sanctions, and bug bounty programs have created a defense framework, but neo-privateers add a layer of 'lawful attack' that is authorized.
Bug bounty programs promote finding defense vulnerabilities; OFAC exerts economic pressure; federal investigations ensure legal validity in litigation. A well-controlled letter of marque can accelerate cross-border asset tracing and recovery, but a tight monitoring and international coordination mechanism is needed to avoid legal conflicts.
Mechanism Target Subject Main Advantages Risks/Challenges Letter of marque (proposed) Private authorized Asset recovery, deterrence Flexibility, rapid scaling Abuse of power, legal conflicts Federal enforcement (FBI/DOJ) State agency Litigation, seizure High legality Lengthy process Bug bounty/defense Security researchers Reduce vulnerabilities Effective prevention No asset recovery OFAC sanctions Treasury Department Financial blockade Macro pressure Evasion of sanctions, difficult enforcement
What are the deployment, oversight, and metrics that need to be monitored?
When deploying, a mission approval process for letters of marque, ROE (Rules of Engagement) standards, targeting criteria, and transparent periodic reporting are needed.
Metrics: number of asset recoveries, time from detection to seizure, prosecution success rate, rate of complaints/unintended consequences, value of assets transferred to reserves. Additionally, monitoring international interactions, partner responses, and deterrent capacity against ransomware groups, pig butchering scams.
Implications for the Bitcoin reserve strategy and national cryptocurrency?
The flow of legally seized digital assets is a channel for increasing reserves without inflating the budget, aligning with a budget-neutral approach.
If the monthly recovery scale reaches hundreds of millions of dollars during peak cybercrime periods, reserves could steadily increase, accompanied by the need for risk management of custody, price volatility, and liquidity. Recent seizure enforcement lessons show that practical recovery capabilities exist and require a tighter cooperative framework to optimize.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the bill allow for unlimited use of force?
No. The bill states 'all reasonable means necessary' within the scope of the letters of marque. Enforcement is subject to federal oversight and compliance with relevant laws.
How are seized cryptocurrency assets handled?
After seizure, the government can request the court to declare forfeiture. Once adjudicated, the assets can be transferred to the government and added to the reserves under the current decree.
What types of cybercrimes are targeted directly?
Cryptocurrency theft, pig butchering scams, ransomware, identity theft, unauthorized access to obtain sensitive/confidential data, password trading, and distributing malware.
Does the bill replace the role of the FBI/DOJ?
No. This is an additional layer. The FBI/DOJ still lead investigations, prosecutions, and seizures; neo-privateers operate within the scope of their mandates and oversight.
Why is the bill related to the national Bitcoin reserve?
Because the January decree allows reserves to be accumulated through asset seizures. Recoveries from cybercrime could become a legitimate source for the reserve.
Source: https://tintucbitcoin.com/my-de-xuat-tu-nhan-san-hacker/
Thank you for reading this article!
Please Like, Comment, and Follow TinTucBitcoin to stay updated with the latest news about the cryptocurrency market and not miss any important information!
