CustodyStress
Archive › Forced relocation
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-00112

Forced relocation — exchange custody (2014)

Constrained
Case description
Following the Russian Finance Ministry's February 2014 statement that Bitcoin use could be prosecuted under anti-money-laundering laws, several Russian Bitcoin exchange users who held accounts on local platforms found those platforms suspending operations. Users who had not anticipated the regulatory shift and had not pre-emptively withdrawn had no recourse.
Custody context
Stress conditionForced relocation
Custody systemExchange custody
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2014
CountryRussia
Structural dependencies observed
Legal process requiredInstitutional cooperation required
What this illustrates
Before anyone could access the funds, a legal process had to be completed first. 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 forced relocation
91 cases involve forced relocation 512 cases involve exchange custody 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.