Crypto Asset Seizures By Uk Authorities
🔹 Overview
Crypto assets (like Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc.) have increasingly been used in criminal activities, including:
Money laundering
Drug trafficking
Fraud
Ransomware attacks
Tax evasion
As a result, UK authorities have developed mechanisms to trace, freeze, and seize crypto assets under existing laws such as:
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA)
Criminal Finances Act 2017
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018
These laws allow authorities to treat crypto assets as "property" that can be restrained and confiscated if they are believed to represent the proceeds of crime.
🔹 Key Legal Powers for Seizing Crypto
Search and Seizure Powers
Police and agencies (like NCA or HMRC) can seize crypto hardware or access credentials during searches under PACE 1984 or POCA.
Restraint Orders (POCA Part 2)
Used to prevent dissipation of assets before a criminal trial.
Confiscation Orders (POCA Part 2)
After conviction, crypto assets can be permanently seized if proven to be proceeds of crime.
Account Freezing Orders (Criminal Finances Act 2017)
Allow freezing of bank and crypto accounts suspected to hold criminal proceeds.
Civil Recovery (POCA Part 5)
Authorities can pursue crypto assets through the civil courts even without a criminal conviction.
🔹 Key UK Cases Involving Crypto Asset Seizures
1. R v. Terence Tyrrell (2021) – Greater Manchester Police
Facts:
Greater Manchester Police seized over £5 million worth of cryptocurrency from Tyrrell, linked to a criminal gang running phishing and fraudulent investment schemes.
Action Taken:
Crypto wallets were seized and access keys obtained. A confiscation order was later granted.
Significance:
Showed that UK police can not only seize digital wallets but also convert crypto to fiat currency for confiscation under POCA.
2. R v. James Parker (2023) – Cumbria Bitcoin Fraud Case
Facts:
Parker exploited a glitch in an online crypto exchange and unlawfully withdrew £15 million in crypto over a short period. The case involved converting stolen funds into assets and laundering them.
Held:
Parker was convicted of fraud and money laundering. The court approved seizure and confiscation of his crypto assets.
Significance:
The court held that even digital assets obtained through technical exploitation were subject to POCA confiscation.
3. R v. Jonathan Dempsey (2020) – Bitcoin Drug Money
Facts:
Dempsey operated a drug trafficking ring and received payments in Bitcoin. He tried to hide them across multiple wallets.
Held:
He was convicted of drug offences, and the court ordered the seizure of hundreds of thousands in Bitcoin as criminal proceeds.
Significance:
Demonstrated the traceability of crypto assets through forensic blockchain analysis and confirmed their seizure under POCA.
4. HMRC v. Unnamed Crypto Trader (2022) – Civil Recovery
Facts:
HMRC launched a civil recovery case against a trader who failed to declare crypto profits and was suspected of laundering funds.
Action Taken:
Under POCA Part 5, the civil court allowed seizure of over £1.5 million in crypto assets, without criminal conviction.
Significance:
Important use of civil recovery powers where prosecution was impractical, showing authorities don’t need a conviction to seize crypto linked to illicit wealth.
5. R v. Sergejs Teresko (2018) – Surrey Police Case
Facts:
Police discovered a large stash of drugs and cash along with cryptocurrency hardware wallets. Crypto valued at over £1.2 million was seized.
Held:
After conviction, confiscation of crypto was granted by the Crown Court.
Significance:
One of the earliest British cases where a criminal’s cryptocurrency was seized and treated like traditional cash under POCA.
6. Metropolitan Police Seizure (July 2021) – Anonymous Case
Facts:
The Met Police seized £180 million worth of cryptocurrency linked to international money laundering operations.
Outcome:
The assets were frozen and later confiscated through civil mechanisms.
Significance:
At the time, this was one of the largest crypto seizures globally, showing how law enforcement collaborates internationally and uses financial intelligence units (FIUs).
🔹 Legal Principles from Case Law
| Legal Principle | Case Example | Application |
|---|---|---|
| Crypto is "property" under POCA | R v. Tyrrell, R v. Dempsey | Can be frozen and confiscated |
| Traceability enables seizure | R v. Dempsey, R v. Parker | Blockchain analysis is admissible evidence |
| Civil seizure without conviction is legal | HMRC v. Unnamed Trader | Civil recovery under POCA Part 5 |
| Conversion to fiat currency allowed | R v. Tyrrell, Met Police Case | Crypto may be sold post-seizure |
| Access to wallets may require cooperation | R v. Teresko | Courts can compel key disclosure |
🔹 Enforcement Challenges
Access to Private Keys
Without access credentials, crypto assets can be difficult to seize or liquidate.
Anonymity and Obfuscation
Use of mixers and privacy coins makes tracing harder but not impossible with forensic tools.
Jurisdictional Issues
Cross-border exchanges and wallets require international cooperation (MLATs, INTERPOL).
Valuation Volatility
Crypto value fluctuates rapidly, complicating confiscation orders and realisation of funds.
🔹 Conclusion
UK authorities are increasingly successful in tracing and seizing crypto assets linked to criminal activity. Courts have confirmed that crypto is a form of "property" under UK law, and seizure is possible through both criminal and civil channels.
As enforcement tools improve and legal principles continue to develop, the trend shows:
Broader application of existing asset recovery laws to digital currencies.
Recognition of the role of crypto in organised crime and fraud.
Courts consistently supporting confiscation and conversion of illicit crypto holdings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments