CustodyStress
Archive › Physical coercion
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01334

Physical coercion incidents — hardware wallet (2025)

Constrained
Case description
CertiK's 2025 Wrench Attack Report documented 72 verified physical coercion incidents targeting cryptocurrency holders worldwide—a 75% increase over the 41 incidents documented in 2024. Kidnapping accounted for 25 incidents (up 66% from 15 in 2024); physical assaults rose 250% from 4 to 14. Total confirmed losses exceeded $40.9 million, a 44% increase from 2024's $28.3 million. Europe accounted for over 40% of global incidents, with France alone recording 19 cases—more than any other country. Jameson Lopp's open database of documented attacks counted approximately 65–70 cases, with both sources noting that under-reporting meant true incident counts were likely substantially higher.
Custody context
Stress conditionPhysical coercion
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
CountryInternational
Structural dependencies observed
Biometric or physical presence
What this illustrates
Physical presence and control of the holder was what the attacker needed — and got. Whether full access was ultimately possible is unclear, but significant delay or outside intervention was involved.
Outcome interpretation
Access remained possible, but only with delay, dependence, or significant difficulty.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
News article
Related cases involving physical coercion
101 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
Terms guide
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.
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