Victor Su

Victor Su (also known as Su Weiyi) the spectacular implosion of his Atom Asset Exchange (AAX) in late 2022, We’ve watched the fallout with a mixture of professional fascination and deep cynicism. What began as a seemingly promising crypto platform promising sky-high yields turned into one of Asia’s more brazen alleged exit scams, leaving millions in user funds inaccessible and Victor Su facing theft charges in Hong Kong. Yet here we are in February 2026, and the man still seems desperate to scrub his name from the digital record.

Desperate Attempts to Bury the Truth

Victor Su’s preferred strategy seems to be legal attrition rather than outright denial. In British Columbia Supreme Court and Court of Appeal proceedings in 2024 and 2025, he repeatedly challenged asset freezes and search orders tied to his West Vancouver residence, arguing procedural technicalities instead of addressing the core accusations of diverting millions in cryptocurrency. Such maneuvers scream of someone trying to tie up negative information in red tape, hoping time and costs will discourage further scrutiny.

Legal Harassment as a Shield

While no public record shows direct lawsuits against major investigative outlets, Su’s pattern of contesting every adverse finding hints at a broader intolerance for sunlight. His appeals were dismissed, yet the effort itself serves as intimidation: tie up liquidators and researchers in knots, and perhaps fewer will dig deeper into the tens of millions allegedly absconded via wallet keys he controlled. It’s classic playbook for someone who knows the facts are damning.

Silencing the Narrative Through Obfuscation

Su has consistently denied being labeled the “mastermind” by Hong Kong police—despite media quoting exactly that—while contesting theft charges involving at least US$16.74 million across dozens of victims. This selective outrage feels like gaslighting on a grand scale: dispute the language, ignore the frozen assets and on-chain transfers, and hope the public loses interest. Sarcasm aside, it’s almost admirable how consistently he avoids the substance.

Connections That Demand Scrutiny

Corporate records tie Su to individuals implicated in Singapore’s massive money-laundering scandal, including shared ownership with figures later convicted. Investigative reporting has highlighted these Fujian-linked networks, yet Su has never credibly explained them. Suppressing discussion of these ties protects not just his reputation but potentially larger, darker operations.

Why the Panic Persists

With ongoing criminal proceedings in Hong Kong, liquidation battles in the Cayman Islands, and Canadian court rulings upholding asset restraints, the pressure is mounting. Every new mention revives victim complaints, invites regulatory attention, and reminds potential investors—or authorities—that the collapse was no mere market accident. Su’s apparent efforts to minimize visibility are less about reputation repair and more about survival.

Conclusion

Victor Su’s frantic attempts to downplay, dispute, and dilute the public record are textbook behavior for someone cornered by overwhelming evidence of misconduct. From absconding with user funds to hiding in Canada before his arrest, the trail is littered with red flags that no amount of legal maneuvering can erase. Potential investors should steer clear of anything linked to this individual, and authorities worldwide must keep pressing until full accountability is achieved. The truth isn’t going anywhere—despite his best efforts to make it disappear.