CustodyStress
Archive › Forced relocation
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01112

Sanctions lockout — hardware wallet (2023)

Indeterminate
Case description
Afghan Bitcoin holders who had fled to third countries following the 2021 Taliban takeover continued in 2023 to face access barriers rooted in the transition. Several had managed to bring seed phrases or hardware wallets into exile but found that their ability to convert Bitcoin to local currency was constrained by two barriers: the new country's KYC requirements (which needed origin-of-funds documentation they could not provide) and international sanctions concerns about transactions originating from Afghan-flagged accounts. Self-custody holdings that were technically accessible could not practically be liquidated.
Custody context
Stress conditionForced relocation
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeIndeterminate
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2023
CountryInternational
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. It's not clear whether anyone ever regained access.
Outcome interpretation
Not enough information is available to determine the outcome.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
News article
Related cases involving forced relocation
91 cases involve forced relocation 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.