Legal 500 Leading Firm 2026 / The Time Best Law Firms 2026 / 40+ Years of Expert Legal Practice in London
Legal 500 Leading Firm 2026 / The Time Best Law Firms 2026 / 40+ Years of Expert Legal Practice in London
Recognised as a Legal 500 Leading Firm 2026 and included in The Times Best Law Firms 2026, with more than 40 years of expert legal practice in London, we advise and represent individuals and companies facing cryptoasset investigations, restraint, freezing and seizure by all UK authorities, including the FCA, HMRC, the NCA and the police.
If your cryptoassets have been frozen or seized, call our solicitors on +44 20 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form for confidential, urgent advice. We act for clients across London, throughout England and Wales and internationally.
Call +44 20 7387 2032 Make a Confidential EnquiryOur credentials include:
Recognised as a Legal 500 Leading Firm 2026
Included in The Times Best Law Firms 2026
More than 40 years of expert legal practice in London
Partner-led representation in cryptoasset restraint, freezing and forfeiture proceedings
A proven track record of securing the release of frozen and restrained cryptoassets
Close collaboration with leading Counsel, forensic accountants and blockchain tracing experts
Have your cryptoassets been frozen? Legislation that came into force in 2024 made the freezing of cryptoassets much more straightforward for the authorities. The new powers build on the tried and tested processes originally created through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). Sections 179 and 181 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 introduced a new Chapter 3C into POCA.
This allows the authorities to deal with cryptoassets in a similar way to cash and other fixed assets. That means cryptoassets can very quickly become subject to freezing and forfeiture proceedings, in many cases without any criminal charge ever being brought.
For expert, trusted legal advice from one of our solicitors, please telephone us on +44 20 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form.
Our team, led in this field by Siobhain Egan, has advised and represented clients in a series of substantial cryptoasset matters:
Advising an online gambling company that had cryptoassets of £250,000 in value seized by Isle of Man authorities. All monies were returned and released.
Advising and representing a cryptoasset marketing company with over £1.5 million restrained.
Advising a specialist UK cryptoasset trading company, and associated companies, facing a joint FCA and Metropolitan Police investigation into alleged money laundering to the value of £1.3 billion and FSMA offences.
Advising and representing two UK cryptoasset marketing companies upon restraint of over circa £2.5 million, against the background of a large-scale US Department of Justice prosecution of the ultimate beneficial owners of the Hyperverse group of companies.
Advising a cryptoasset professional with £1 million of crypto-related monies frozen by the NCA.
Advising a prominent property and cryptoasset professional in the UAE investigated by the Metropolitan Police over historic major cryptoasset transactions. The investigation was abandoned after an in-depth defence to the allegations was submitted.
Successfully advising a professional gambler whose cryptoasset-related monies were frozen by his bank subject to a moratorium under POCA. A full explanation and detailed audit trail of earnings was submitted, and all monies were released.
Advising a cryptoasset company with £14 million of cryptoasset earnings subject to an account freezing order.
Advising a non-UK cryptoasset professional with over £1 million in assets restrained.
In criminal cases, the police and other accredited financial investigators can seek a court order to freeze assets held in an institution. In the most basic terms, an order could be sought to freeze money held in a bank account of an individual or organisation. Once frozen, the authorities must make a case for the asset to be forfeited.
It is possible to apply to the courts for freezing and forfeiture orders in civil proceedings too, and this is where much cryptoasset enforcement now takes place. The civil standard of proof applies, so assets can be forfeited without any criminal conviction where the court is satisfied they derive from, or were intended for use in, unlawful conduct.
The biggest challenge is the distributed nature of the assets. Some of the key attractions of cryptoassets are their liquidity and ease of transfer. They are digital assets, not tied to any physical location. The courts have jurisdiction over assets located within the UK and, in POCA cases, outside the UK, meaning that where cryptoassets are located abroad, the courts can order their return to the UK.
The most obvious targets for freezing and forfeiture orders are cryptoasset exchanges and crypto wallet providers.
The initial period any seized cryptoassets can be held is 48 hours. This period can be extended by court order to six months, and further applications can extend the period of retention up to a maximum of three years.
All extensions are subject to the court being satisfied that continued retention is warranted, and each application is an opportunity for a well-prepared respondent to challenge the case for detention.
Yes. There are two routes. The first is where the person from whom the assets were seized applies to the court seeking their release; the assets will be released if the court is satisfied that the conditions for detention are no longer met. The second is where an authorised official notifies the court that continued detention is no longer justified.
In our experience, a detailed, evidenced account of the provenance of the assets, supported by an audit trail and expert input where needed, is frequently the difference between release and forfeiture. Several of the successes listed above were achieved in precisely this way.
Time limits in these proceedings are strict, and early hearings can shape the whole case.
Your solicitor will establish which agency has acted, under which POCA provisions, and what stage the proceedings have reached.
Gather exchange statements, wallet histories, transaction records, tax filings and correspondence showing the source of the assets.
Transfers made after a freeze can generate fresh allegations, including money laundering.
A documented audit trail of earnings and acquisitions, supported by blockchain analysis where appropriate, underpins any release application.
Each application to extend detention must be justified. Delay and lack of investigative progress can be turned to your advantage.
Freezing proceedings often run alongside criminal, regulatory or overseas investigations. Strategy needs to be coordinated across all of them.
Your legal team will prepare the evidence and argument, instructing specialist Counsel where the case demands it.
The following commentary on Schedule 7 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which amended the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, was provided by Barnaby Hone of 5 St Andrew's Hill and is republished by Lewis Nedas Law with permission. It has been lightly edited for clarity.
Lewis Nedas Law has a proven track record of assisting clients with cryptoasset seizures and related complex legal matters. We provide expert legal advice on cryptoasset regulation, including asset freezing and seizure orders and HMRC powers, and we advise and represent the victims of crypto fraud and crypto disputes generally, in London and beyond.
Depending on the nature of your matter, your case may be handled by Siobhain Egan, Jeffrey Lewis, Miles Herman or Keith Wood, working with specialist Counsel and blockchain tracing experts where the case requires it.
Cryptoassets can be frozen if authorities suspect they are linked to criminal conduct or intended for unlawful use under POCA powers.
Crypto investigations may involve the NCA, police, HMRC or the FCA, often acting jointly in serious or high-value cases.
Crypto seizures are now governed by POCA as amended by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
Cryptoassets can initially be held for 48 hours, then extended by court order up to six months and potentially up to three years.
Yes. You can apply to court to challenge the order and seek release if legal conditions for detention are not met.
UK courts can order restraint or return of cryptoassets held abroad if they have jurisdiction and enforcement is possible.
Authorities may pursue forfeiture even without a criminal conviction if they can show the assets derive from unlawful conduct.
Yes. Early legal advice is critical to protect your assets, challenge restraint orders and manage parallel investigations.
If you are facing a cryptoasset investigation, a freezing or forfeiture order, restraint proceedings or allegations connected to crypto transactions, immediate specialist advice can protect your assets and your position. Lewis Nedas Law is recognised as a Legal 500 Leading Firm 2026 and included in The Times Best Law Firms 2026, with more than 40 years of expert legal practice in London.
To speak with a member of our specialist team, call +44 20 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form to arrange a confidential consultation.
Call +44 20 7387 2032 Arrange a Confidential Consultation
Introduction
Is this the way to stop the use of cryptoassets in criminal conduct? It should be. If not, it is a good start. Schedule 7 contains provisions allowing the widest possible variety of law enforcement agencies to search for information used in locating cryptoassets, to seize cryptoassets and related items, and to have cryptoassets forfeited.
Applications are made in the Magistrates' Court, with a direct appeal of a forfeiture order to the Crown Court, and limited grounds for matters to be heard in the High Court. The legislation broadly uses the framework of the cash seizure provisions, as set out in sections 294 to 297 of POCA 2002, for the seizure of cryptoassets and cryptoasset-related items, and the framework of Account Freezing and Forfeiture Orders (AFFOs), sections 303Z1 to 303Z20, for the seizure of crypto wallets and the forfeiture of cryptoassets. The search provisions mirror those for cash searches.
The legislation allows cryptoassets to be converted to cash, allows victims and interested parties to seek release of funds, and permits living or legal expenses to be excluded from an order. These provisions have been developed from more than 20 years of the earlier legislation operating in practice.
The cash seizure and AFFO case law is well established, developed under POCA 2002 and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 before it. The relevant procedural rules are set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981; the CPR and CrimPR do not apply, though some of their principles can be relevant. The test for forfeiture where property has come from unlawful conduct is established in a line of authority including R (Director of the Assets Recovery Agency) v Green [2005] EWHC 3168, Director of the ARA v Szepietowski [2007] EWCA Civ 766 and Angus v UKBA [2011] EWHC 461 (Admin), which requires the evidence to show the money came from a type of criminality, which can include money laundering. Fletcher v Chief Constable of Leicestershire [2013] EWHC 3357 and Sandhu v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2019] EWHC 3316 set out the law on the second limb, forfeiture of assets intended for use in criminal conduct.
The definitions in the provisions come from the cryptocurrency working group and are broadly drafted, with power for amendment by statutory instrument, a sensible provision allowing flexibility. Applications can be made by any accredited financial investigator (AFI) under section 354 of POCA 2002, whether based in a local authority, a law enforcement agency or any other body with a registered AFI. The drafters have sensibly applied tried and tested law rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel.
Three core issues will affect implementation: international, information and jurisdictional issues; the practical difficulty of locating cryptoassets; and the infrastructure needed for the Act to be properly implemented.
International Issues
By their nature these applications are likely to have an international element. Cryptoassets were adopted by criminal organisations for their liquidity and the speed with which they could be moved across borders with little trace, though that is no longer strictly true of every asset class, and some are highly traceable. They have no home jurisdiction and no physical form or address. Exchanges and wallet providers are the closest analogue to banks, but without the regulatory relationships or deep links to a jurisdiction, though this is developing.
Two questions arise. First, does the court have jurisdiction over assets with no fixed location? This should be relatively straightforward: the courts have consistently found they have power over assets in the UK and outside it in POCA cases, as highlighted in restraint proceedings in DPP v Scarlett [2000] 1 WLR 515, where the court required assets to be returned to the jurisdiction. The practical limit is enforcement: orders will bite only on assets controlled by wallet providers or exchanges that can be reached here and will obey orders here.
Second, how do law enforcement agencies obtain assistance from abroad? A large proportion of AFFO cases rely on evidence from overseas, whether of a conviction, circumstantial evidence of criminality or tracing evidence. Obtaining it requires a Letter of Request between the UK Central Authority and its overseas counterpart, a long and technical process where responses can take many months. To deal with this delay, the legislation allows detention of cryptoassets and related items to be extended to three years where a Letter of Request has been made. This gives investigators time, but should not become a licence for procrastination; courts and respondents will scrutinise extension applications closely, and the six-month increments provide an extra safeguard.
A further difficulty is whether other countries recognise the law and the principle of dual criminality, since many jurisdictions have no equivalent of non-conviction-based asset recovery. This will require education and cooperation on the part of law enforcement, where the network of liaison magistrates and personal relationships matter greatly.
Practical Issues of Locating Cryptoassets
Financial investigators, courts and lawyers are used to dealing with cash and bank accounts, institutions whose workings all stakeholders understand, with established lines of communication. None of that is true of cryptoassets and the bodies that hold them. Many were formed precisely to avoid scrutiny from governments and institutions, and though the sector is seeking to become mainstream, residual resistance remains. Orders are only as good as the willingness of those holding the assets to obey them.
Knowledge of what cryptoassets, wallets and related items actually are is not widely held among courts, investigators or lawyers. In one of the first seizures of cryptocurrency, around 2015 under section 47 of POCA, the wallet was found by chance: a trainee on a search noticed a string of numbers on a piece of paper that an experienced investigator had overlooked. It was the passcode to a crypto wallet, and millions in cryptoassets were seized. The lesson is that investigators need to know what they are looking for. Any accredited financial investigator can use these provisions, so all will need a working knowledge of this complicated area, supported by the right tracing and seizure technology. A specialist knowledge hub at a national agency such as the NCA, supporting AFIs across the country, would be ideal.
That knowledge must filter down to courts and lawyers. The High Court is already regularly hearing claims concerning recovery of cryptoassets. Demand for genuine experts will rise, and in the short term all stakeholders should be vigilant against the unqualified passing themselves off as expert in a new field. The answer, as so often, is training at every level, regularly tested and updated.
The Scale of the Cases
Very little has been said about resources for the courts and agencies that will use these provisions. Under the AFFO provisions there has been a huge rise in cases, straining Magistrates' Courts that already face a substantial backlog. Crime involving cryptocurrency is rife, covering not only money laundering but the theft of cryptoassets, and the victim provisions in the legislation appear to open a route for victims to recover their assets where few realistic alternatives exist. A standard restraint order awaiting criminal trial is slow and depends on conviction to the criminal standard; a purely civil claim with a freezing order is costly, and its viability for assets under £250,000 is questionable.
Victims are likely to turn to the police and other agencies with accredited financial investigators to recover assets under these provisions, and the potential volume could overwhelm both the investigating teams and the courts. As HMRC v Mann demonstrated, the timelines in these cases are strict, and a lack of court capacity could mean cases falling out of the process altogether, leading to complaints and injustice. The Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme gives a 50 per cent split between the law enforcement agency and the Home Office in these cases, with no share for the courts, in contrast to the confiscation regime. In time, the volume and specialism of this work may justify dedicated POCA courts or the ticketing of judges, in the way extradition work developed, with specialist training across the Magistrates' Court, Crown Court and High Court.
Conclusions
The legislation is a good start in dealing with cryptoassets derived from, or destined for, criminal activity. It applies a tried and tested framework, known to courts, investigators and lawyers, with established definitions and case law. The open question is how it will work in practice: the international dimension, the distinctive nature of the assets, and the infrastructure and expertise needed to hear and bring these cases. Those practicalities, rather than the drafting, are what might let it down. The issues should be overcome; the question is how quickly, so that the credibility of the legislation is maintained.