Criminal Seizures of Crypto-Assets
The emergence of crypto-assets in a growing number of criminal cases has profoundly changed the conditions for implementing this measure. The Chainalysis 2026 report reveals an industrialization of the threat: illicit flows reached $154 billion, driven by massive use of the blockchain by sanctioned states and AI-boosted scams, the profitability of which has been multiplied by 4.5.
Criminal seizure is a decisive operational lever of the criminal response, as it allows for the restitution of assets to the victim but also to deter the use of crypto-assets in organized crime.
To respond to these constraints, the legal framework for criminal seizure has been progressively adapted to allow for the effective apprehension of crypto-assets, whether they are held with crypto-asset service providers or in self-hosted wallets. The extension of existing procedural grounds and the explicit recognition of the seizable nature of crypto-assets have thus legally secured practices intended to prevent the disappearance of funds before any final decision.
This evolution has concretely resulted in a constant increase in the number of criminal seizures of crypto-assets, reflecting their gradual integration into judicial practices. It highlights a central challenge for practitioners: the need to closely coordinate technical expertise and procedural strategy to guarantee the effectiveness of seizure measures and ensure, where applicable, the restitution of assets to victims.
To find out more about the legal framework for crypto-asset recovery, ORWL has published a legal guide accessible from this page.
Identification of seizable crypto-assets
As soon as crypto-assets constitute the object, instrument, or proceeds of an offense, whether they represent an equivalent value to these, or whether their illicit origin can be presumed (particularly since the introduction of the offense of presumed money laundering in Article 324-1-1 of the Penal Code), they are considered confiscable – and therefore seizable – assets.
However, the effectiveness of the criminal seizure will be subject to the identification of the seizable assets and involves preliminary technical analysis work. This analysis will not only aim to locate the addresses on which the crypto-assets proceeds of the prosecuted offense are located, but also to determine the potential seizure modalities.
Indeed, the modalities of crypto-asset seizure depend not only on their nature but also on their method of custody.
Regarding classic crypto-assets, such as Bitcoin or Ether, when they are held directly on an address not linked to a crypto-asset service provider (CASP), their seizure must be implemented through a seizure request sent by the judiciary to the relevant third-party custodian.
Conversely, when assets circulate on self-hosted (non-custodial) addresses, their criminal seizure is strictly subject to access to the private keys of said addresses, which in practice requires either the discovery of this key by the investigators when it is recorded on a visible medium, or the cooperation of the holder.
Regarding stablecoins, these obey a distinct technical logic since most issuers of this type of crypto-asset provide for the possibility of blacklisting the addresses on which their assets circulate. Thus, even if stablecoins are held on a self-hosted (self-custodial) address, the intervention of the issuer may be sufficient to block their use or transfer.
This distinction is crucial for practitioners: if all crypto-assets are, in principle, seizable, the concrete modalities for executing the seizure, as well as its speed and effectiveness, vary considerably depending on the category of asset concerned. It therefore conditions the procedural strategy to adopt from the first stages of the investigation.
Procedural framework for criminal seizures of crypto-assets
Procedurally, criminal seizure is a precautionary measure. It is decided by the Judge of Liberties and Detention (JLD) or the investigating judge (in accordance with articles 706-153 and 706-154 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure – CPP) and concerns assets that are the product, object, or instrument of an offense.
Also, to allow for faster apprehension, the legislator, by Law No. 2023-22 of January 24, 2023, adapted the seizure mechanisms applicable to monetary assets to crypto-assets. In the event of a proven risk of dissipation of funds, this seizure can be carried out immediately by a judicial police officer, with the prior authorization of the Public Prosecutor or the investigating judge, subject to subsequent judicial review within ten days.
Custody and restitution of seized crypto-assets
Once seized, the assets placed under judicial control are managed by the Agency for the Management and Recovery of Seized and Confiscated Assets (AGRASC), which holds a monopoly in this area.
The criminal seizure of crypto-assets does not, by itself, entail automatic restitution to the victim. Once the assets are placed under judicial control, their restitution requires the intervention of a specific judicial decision, rendered either by the Public Prosecutor or the investigating judge if no presumed perpetrator has been clearly identified, or by the trial court ruling at the end of the investigation phase.
Obtaining a final restitution order or judgment then allows for the opening of an administrative restitution phase with AGRASC, which is responsible for holding the crypto-assets under judicial control and proceeding with their restitution in accordance with the final judicial decision. In practice, this phase may require technical verifications and additional diligence from the beneficiary of the restitution.
