CustodyStress
Archive › Legal or authority constraint
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01249

The holder retained their seed phrase backups, meaning the Bitcoin could theoretically

Constrained
Case description
A 2024 civil forfeiture case involved US federal agents seizing two hardware wallets during a search warrant execution. The wallets were listed as seized property in the warrant inventory. The holder was not charged with any crime related to the seized wallets. The wallets were held as evidence in an unrelated investigation. The holder retained their seed phrase backups, meaning the Bitcoin could theoretically be restored to new devices—but doing so would create new addresses on the blockchain identical to the seized addresses, potentially appearing to be an attempt to move evidence. The holder waited for the return of the physical devices through the civil asset return process, which took approximately six months.
Custody context
Stress conditionLegal or authority constraint
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2024
CountryUnited States
Structural dependencies observed
Legal process 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 legal or authority constraint
39 cases involve legal or authority constraint 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.