CustodyStress
Archive › Owner incapacity
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01348

Owner incapacity — hardware wallet (2025)

Indeterminate
Case description
A 2025 UK court case heard by the Court of Protection addressed whether a Bitcoin holder with late-stage multiple sclerosis had sufficient mental capacity to manage their cryptocurrency holdings. The court appointed a deputy to manage the holder's financial affairs, but the deputy encountered the practical barrier that the holder's self-custody Bitcoin was not accessible without their physical involvement with the hardware device and PIN. A specialist submitted a technical report to the court explaining that the hardware wallet's security model required the holder's physical participation—legal authority alone was insufficient. The court ultimately ruled that the Bitcoin had to be treated as an inaccessible asset pending the holder's recovery or death.
Custody context
Stress conditionOwner incapacity
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeIndeterminate
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
CountryUnited Kingdom
Structural dependencies observed
Single point of failureLegal process required
What this illustrates
There was only one way in. When that path was gone, so was access. It's not clear whether anyone ever regained access.
Outcome interpretation
Not enough information is available to determine the outcome.
Source
Privately Reported
Evidence type
News article
Related cases involving owner incapacity
68 cases involve owner incapacity 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