CustodyStress
Archive › Physical coercion
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-00299

The former partner transferred approximately 5 BTC from the wallet while threatening to

Constrained
Case description
A forum post from June 2016 describes a trader coerced into revealing wallet credentials by a former business partner who had insider knowledge of their holdings. The former partner transferred approximately 5 BTC from the wallet while threatening to make false regulatory reports if the victim sought legal redress. The victim eventually reported to police after consultation with an attorney.
Custody context
Stress conditionPhysical coercion
Custody systemMobile or software wallet
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2016
CountryUnknown
Structural dependencies observed
Single point of failure
What this illustrates
There was only one way in. When that path was gone, so was access. 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
Forum post
Related cases involving physical coercion
105 cases involve physical coercion 572 cases involve mobile or software wallet 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.