CustodyStress
Archive › Physical coercion
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01306

Sheffield Crown Court sentenced a trio for the robbery on 18 November 2024.

Blocked
Case description
A 2024 case that surfaced in November 2024 after perpetrators were sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court involved attackers who had used a leaked database linking a £4.3 million Bitcoin wallet to a specific UK address to plan a home invasion. The gang executed a coordinated attack on the property, stealing nearly the full amount. Sheffield Crown Court sentenced a trio for the robbery on 18 November 2024. The case was highlighted by security researchers as a clear example of how on-chain wallet data, once linked to a physical address through a database leak or social media post, could enable precise targeting of high-value holders.
Custody context
Stress conditionPhysical coercion
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeBlocked
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2024
CountryUnited Kingdom
Structural dependencies observed
Biometric or physical presence
What this illustrates
Access required in-person verification that couldn't be arranged under the circumstances. Access was not recoverable.
Outcome interpretation
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
News article
Evidence link
https://github.com/jlopp/physical-bitcoin-attacks
Related cases involving physical coercion
A Turkish national who had travelled to Hong Kong to conduct a cryptocurrency OTC trade
Hardware wallet (single key) · 2025 Blocked
The analysis noted that attacks were no longer the exclusive domain of
Hardware wallet (single key) · 2025 Constrained
Europe accounted for over 40% of global incidents, with France alone recording 19
Hardware wallet (single key) · 2025 Constrained
105 cases involve physical coercion 274 cases involve hardware wallet (single key) View archive statistics →
This archive documents observed custody survivability failures. It does not attempt to document all Bitcoin losses or security incidents. Submit a case
← All cases
Framework references
Where Bitcoin Custody Intersects Legal and Fiduciary Authority
Where custody creates gaps in estate planning, fiduciary duty, and professional responsibility.
Professional Scope Boundary Matrix
What each professional or product covers, what they do not, and where gaps form between them.
The Independent Assessment Layer in Bitcoin Custody
How independent diagnostic layers emerge when multiple parties depend on shared infrastructure.
Terms guide
Outcome terms
Survives
Access remained possible under the reported conditions.
Constrained
Access remained possible, but only with delay, dependence, or significant difficulty.
Blocked
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Indeterminate
There was not enough information to determine the outcome.
Structural terms
Single-person knowledge
Recovery depended on information or capability held by one individual who was unavailable.
Institutional dependence
Recovery depended on a third-party institution or service that was inaccessible or uncooperative.
Documentation gap
Recovery depended on instructions that were missing, incomplete, or unclear.
Authority mismatch
The person with legal authority to act did not have operational access, or vice versa.
Original text
Rate this translation
Your feedback will be used to help improve Google Translate