Three Charged in $6M Crypto Robbery Spree

Federal prosecutors in San Francisco said three Tennessee men have been charged in a violent robbery and kidnapping scheme that targeted cryptocurrency holders in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California said a federal grand jury indicted Elijah Armstrong, 21, Nino Chindavanh, 21, and Jayden Rucker, 25, on March 31, 2026. Prosecutors said the men posed as delivery workers, used firearms, duct tape and zip ties, and tried to force victims to surrender access to digital assets. The charges were announced publicly on May 11. ### Who are the defendants, and what are they accused of? The indictment names Elijah Armstrong, Nino Chindavanh and Jayden Rucker, all described by prosecutors as Tennessee residents. The men are charged with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, attempted Hobbs Act robbery and attempted kidnapping, according to the Justice Department. Prosecutors said the alleged conspiracy targeted victims in San Francisco, San Jose, Sunnyvale and Los Angeles. (justice.gov) March 31, 2026, is the filing date listed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the indictment. Court records indexed by CourtListener show the federal case as United States v. Armstrong, No. 3:26-cr-00146, in the Northern District of California, with a sealing order entered on March 31. ### How did prosecutors say the robberies worked? Prosecutors said the men traveled from Tennessee to California and posed as delivery people to get to victims’ homes. (justice.gov) Once inside, they allegedly used guns, restraints and threats to overpower victims and force them to reveal account credentials or open cryptocurrency accounts. The Justice Department said the scheme included both completed robberies and attempted attacks. One of the clearest allegations in the case involves a transfer of about $6.5 million. The Justice Department said one victim was forced at gunpoint to sign in to cryptocurrency accounts so that a co-conspirator could move the funds to a wallet controlled by the group. U.S. Attorney Craig H. Missakian said in the release that the defendants, “as alleged,” terrorized victims in hopes of stealing large sums of cryptocurrency. (justice.gov) ### Where and when were the arrests made? December 22, 2025, is the arrest date prosecutors gave for Chindavanh, who they said was taken into custody in Sunnyvale. December 31, 2025, is the arrest date prosecutors gave for Armstrong and Rucker, who they said were arrested in Los Angeles. Those arrests came months before the indictment was unsealed publicly. April 14, 2026, is the date prosecutors gave for Chindavanh’s initial appearance in federal court in San Francisco. (justice.gov) The Justice Department said Armstrong and Rucker made their initial appearances in San Francisco on May 11, the day the charges were announced. ### Why does the case mention both Bay Area cities and Los Angeles? San Francisco, San Jose and Sunnyvale are named in the indictment summary released by prosecutors, and Los Angeles is listed as another location where victims were allegedly targeted. (justice.gov) The Justice Department’s account describes one conspiracy spanning multiple California cities rather than a single robbery. That is why the federal charges are framed as conspiracy counts along with attempted robbery and attempted kidnapping counts. Local coverage in the Bay Area said the men had been arrested in December in connection with robberies and attempted robberies involving cryptocurrency owners. San Jose Inside reported that all three had appeared or were appearing in federal court in April and May. ### What happens next in the case? The defendants remain in federal custody while the prosecution moves forward, according to local reports published after the indictment was announced. (justice.gov) The allegations have not been proven in court, and the charges are accusations. The next public updates are likely to appear on the Northern District of California docket for United States v. Armstrong and in filings through the San Francisco federal court. (sanjoseinside.com)