Bitcoin Preferential Transfer

Preferential Transfer and Bankruptcy Clawback Risk

This memo is published by CustodyStress, an independent Bitcoin custody stress test that produces reference documents for individuals, families, and professionals.

Ninety Day and One Year Lookback Windows

A person or business transfers bitcoin to creditors, family members, or business partners. Months later, bankruptcy occurs. The bankruptcy trustee examines transfers made within ninety days before filing, or one year for insider transfers. Bitcoin transfers during these lookback periods face challenge as bitcoin preferential transfer payments that must be returned to the bankruptcy estate. Someone searches for information when they receive preference demand letters or discover past bitcoin transfers might be challenged in pending bankruptcy proceedings.

The search typically happens after bankruptcy filing when recipients learn their received bitcoin might be subject to clawback. Transfer seemed legitimate when it occurred—payment for services, estate planning transfer, business restructuring, debt repayment. Bankruptcy code treats transfers within specific time periods as potentially preferential regardless of original intent. Recipients who thought bitcoin transfer was complete and final discover bankruptcy law may require returning equivalent value to estate.

---

Ninety Day and One Year Lookback Windows

Bankruptcy code establishes different preference periods for different recipients. Transfers to non-insiders within ninety days of bankruptcy filing face preference analysis. Transfers to insiders extend to one year lookback. Insider status includes relatives, business partners, and entities controlled by the debtor. Bitcoin transfer to spouse seven months before bankruptcy falls within one-year insider window. Same transfer to unrelated creditor seven months prior falls outside ninety-day period and escapes preference vulnerability.

Determining insider status for bitcoin transfers creates classification disputes. Debtor transferred bitcoin to long-time business associate. Bankruptcy trustee claims associate was insider based on close relationship. Associate argues they had arms-length business dealings without control over debtor's affairs. Whether bitcoin recipient qualifies as insider determines applicable lookback period and preference exposure.

---

Transfer for Antecedent Debt

Preferences require transfers for pre-existing debt. Debtor owed creditor money from prior transaction. Months later, debtor transferred bitcoin to partially repay that debt. Transfer occurred within ninety days of bankruptcy. Trustee claims this paid antecedent debt, meeting preference requirements. Creditor received bitcoin for old obligation while other creditors got nothing, creating preference.

Contemporaneous exchanges generally avoid preference treatment. Debtor purchased services and paid in bitcoin the same day. This appears contemporaneous. But bitcoin transaction confirmation took hours. Services were rendered at ten AM. Bitcoin transferred at eleven AM but confirmed at four PM. Whether confirmation timing breaks contemporaneity becomes disputed. Trustee claims delay between service and payment makes it antecedent. Recipient argues same-day payment was contemporaneous regardless of blockchain confirmation timing.

---

Estate Planning Transfers as Preferences

Debtor transferred bitcoin to children as estate planning gift. Transfer occurred four months before bankruptcy filing. Children are insiders triggering one-year lookback. Trustee claims gift constitutes preferential transfer because it gave children bitcoin while creditors remained unpaid. Children argue estate planning gifts are not debt payments and preference law should not apply. Bankruptcy code contains limited gift exceptions but their scope when applied to large bitcoin transfers is uncertain.

Some estate transfers occur through trusts rather than outright gifts. Debtor funded irrevocable trust with bitcoin eight months before bankruptcy. Trustee challenges transfer as preferential to trust beneficiaries who are debtor's children. Debtor claims trust funding was estate planning not creditor preference. Whether trust transfers fall within preference exceptions depends on transfer characterization courts may resolve differently.

---

Transfers Enabling Creditor Security Interests

Debtor granted creditor security interest in bitcoin holdings. Later, debtor transferred bitcoin to creditor's controlled wallet to perfect that security interest. Transfer occurred within preference period. Trustee claims perfection transfer preferred secured creditor over unsecured creditors. Creditor argues they already had security agreement and transfer simply perfected existing rights. Whether perfection transfers constitute preferences depends on when security interest became enforceable versus when it was perfected.

Timing between security agreement and perfection creates preference vulnerability. Creditor obtained security agreement in May. Bitcoin transferred to creditor's wallet in August perfecting that interest. Bankruptcy filed in September. The forty-five days between agreement and perfection might fall within contemporaneous exchange exception. Or perfection might constitute separate preferential transfer because it occurred weeks after the security agreement was signed.

---

Valuation Date Disputes

Preference value determines recovery amount. Debtor transferred one bitcoin when it was worth thirty thousand dollars. By bankruptcy filing, bitcoin trades at sixty thousand. Trustee seeks to recover current sixty-thousand-dollar value. Recipient claims preference calculation uses transfer date value of thirty thousand. Bankruptcy code requires returning equivalent value but does not clearly specify whether equivalent means transfer date value or current value.

Post-transfer appreciation creates recovery disputes. Bitcoin transferred at lower value but appreciated significantly before bankruptcy. Recipient may no longer hold the specific bitcoin received. They sold it or spent it. Trustee demands return of value, not the same bitcoin. But which value—transfer date or current date—determines what must be returned remains contested. Different valuation dates create substantially different recovery amounts.

---

Ordinary Course of Business Defenses

Preference law exempts transfers made in ordinary course of debtor's business according to ordinary business terms. Debtor regularly paid suppliers in bitcoin. Transfer to supplier three weeks before bankruptcy appears to fit ordinary course exception. Trustee claims bitcoin payment was unusual because debtor typically paid in dollars, making bitcoin transfer extraordinary. Supplier argues they had received bitcoin payments before and transfer followed established patterns.

Timing and amount variations affect ordinary course analysis. Debtor historically paid supplier monthly invoices within thirty days. Payment just before bankruptcy came forty-five days late and paid multiple invoices together. This suggests debtor was in financial distress and preferring this creditor. Supplier claims eventual payment still occurred within ordinary business patterns even if delayed. Courts analyze whether payment patterns change materially when insolvency approaches.

---

New Value Defense

Creditor can defend preference claim by showing they provided new value after receiving challenged transfer. Debtor transferred bitcoin to creditor in July. Creditor extended additional credit to debtor in August. Bankruptcy filed in September. Creditor claims new value defense offsets July bitcoin transfer. Trustee must analyze whether August credit extension qualifies as new value and how much it offsets prior transfer.

Measuring new value for bitcoin transfers creates calculation problems. Creditor received bitcoin worth fifty thousand dollars in July. Extended credit of thirty thousand dollars in August. Creditor claims thirty thousand offsets the fifty thousand preference. But bitcoin price changed between July and August. Whether offset uses transfer date value or subsequent value affects how much preference remains after new value defense.

---

Earmarking Doctrine Application

Debtor obtained loan from new lender and used proceeds to pay existing creditor. New lender's funds went directly from lender to old creditor. Some courts apply earmarking doctrine stating this was not debtor's property being transferred but new lender replacing old lender. Debtor obtained bitcoin loan and used it to pay previous bitcoin creditor. Trustee claims bitcoin transfer to old creditor was preference. Debtor argues earmarking applies because new lender's bitcoin went straight to old creditor without entering debtor's control.

Bitcoin custody makes earmarking analysis complex. New lender sent bitcoin to debtor's wallet. Hours later, debtor sent similar amount to old creditor. Technical custody passed through debtor's control even if economically funds were earmarked for creditor payment. Whether brief custody breaks earmarking protection when bitcoin technically entered debtor's wallet before transfer onwards becomes disputed.

---

Fraudulent Transfer Overlap

Same bitcoin transfer might face both preference and fraudulent transfer challenges. Preference claims examine transfers within specific lookback windows for antecedent debt. Fraudulent transfer law reaches further back and applies when transfers were made to hinder creditors or without adequate consideration. Bitcoin transfer occurring thirteen months before bankruptcy escapes preference period but might still face fraudulent transfer challenge if debtor was insolvent and received inadequate exchange.

Some transfers face preference claims from bankruptcy trustee and fraudulent transfer claims from individual creditors outside bankruptcy. Recipient must defend on multiple grounds depending on challenger. Preference defenses emphasizing ordinary course or new value may not help against fraudulent transfer claims examining overall adequacy of consideration. Legal theories overlap but require different defensive evidence.

---

Cross-Border Transfer Complications

Debtor transferred bitcoin to recipient in foreign jurisdiction. Bankruptcy trustee files preference action seeking bitcoin return. Recipient resides outside United States bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. Whether court can enforce preference judgment against foreign recipient holding bitcoin in overseas wallets is uncertain. Bankruptcy court may have authority over preference claim but cannot compel bitcoin return from beyond its jurisdictional reach.

International transfers raise choice of law questions. Debtor operated in United States but transferred bitcoin to recipient abroad. Which country's preference law applies? Some jurisdictions lack preference periods or apply different lookback windows. Recipient argues foreign law governs transaction. Trustee claims US bankruptcy code applies to all transfers by US debtor regardless of recipient location.

---

Leveraged Transfer Defenses

Debtor had secured debt obligations. Transferred bitcoin to lender within preference period. Transfer reduced secured debt. Lender claims they had security interest in all debtor property and transfer simply allowed them to collect what they were already entitled to under security agreement. Trustee argues transfer timing preferred secured creditor by allowing collection before bankruptcy filing. Whether security interest defeats preference claim depends on when interest was perfected and whether transfer exceeded secured amount.

Over-secured creditors face different analysis than under-secured ones. Lender held security in assets worth less than total debt. Debtor transferred bitcoin reducing overall debt but bitcoin was not part of secured collateral. Transfer paid general debt using non-collateral assets. Lender claims transfer was payment of secured obligation. Trustee claims non-collateral assets should not pay secured debt preferentially within lookback window.

---

Settlement Payment Characterization

Debtor settled lawsuit by transferring bitcoin to plaintiff. Settlement occurred sixty days before bankruptcy. Trustee challenges settlement payment as preference. Debtor argues settlement resolved disputed claim and created new obligation distinct from original lawsuit. Plaintiff claims settlement payment was not preferential because it resolved uncertainty about underlying obligation. Whether settlement payments receive preference protection depends on how courts characterize settlement consideration.

Pre-petition settlements often require bankruptcy court approval to avoid preference vulnerability. Settlement without court approval faces retroactive challenge if bankruptcy occurs within preference period. Parties believed settlement was final. Subsequent bankruptcy reopens characterization of whether bitcoin transfer was preferential payment of antecedent debt from lawsuit.

---

Preference Lawsuit Costs Versus Recovery

Trustee calculates potential preference recovery against litigation costs. Small bitcoin transfers may not justify expensive preference litigation. Trustee focuses on larger transfers while small ones escape challenge due to cost-benefit analysis. This creates uncertainty for all preference period recipients about whether their transfers will be challenged based on amount rather than legal merit.

Some recipients settle preference claims rather than litigate even when they believe they have defenses. Settlement avoids litigation costs but requires returning some value to estate. Recipients weigh defense strength against settlement economics. Those who received modest bitcoin amounts may pay settlement despite preference defenses because litigation would cost more than potential liability.

---

Insider Status Factual Disputes

One-year lookback for insiders creates incentive to dispute insider classification. Trustee claims recipient was insider based on personal relationship with debtor. Recipient argues relationship was professional without control elements defining insider status. Determining insider status requires fact analysis of relationship dynamics not clear from transaction documents. Bitcoin transfer occurring between ninety days and one year before bankruptcy escapes preference challenge only if recipient proves non-insider status.

Business relationships create insider ambiguity. Recipient had long business dealings with debtor involving shared ventures and close coordination. This suggests insider relationship. But entities maintained separate finances and decision-making. Whether operational cooperation creates insider status sufficient for one-year lookback depends on control factors courts evaluate differently. Same relationship might be classified insider or non-insider depending on jurisdiction.

---

Avoidance and Recovery Separate Actions

Preference law involves two steps. First, trustee avoids the transfer making it void. Second, trustee recovers equivalent value from recipient. Avoidance might succeed but recovery fail if recipient no longer has funds. Recipient received bitcoin, immediately sold it, and spent proceeds. Court avoids the preferential bitcoin transfer. But recipient cannot return bitcoin they no longer possess and may lack other assets to satisfy recovery judgment.

Recovery against initial recipients versus subsequent transferees creates collection problems. Original recipient transferred bitcoin to third party before bankruptcy. Trustee avoids original transfer and seeks recovery from current holder. Current holder claims they paid value to intermediate transferee and have good faith purchaser defense. Whether trustee can recover from subsequent bitcoin holders depends on their knowledge and value paid for bitcoin.

---

Preference Demand Letter Accuracy

Trustees send preference demand letters to bitcoin transfer recipients. Letters claim specific transfer amounts and dates. Recipients question letter accuracy when their records differ from trustee's assertions. Bitcoin blockchain shows transfers but attributing them to specific parties requires correlating wallet addresses to identities. Trustee's transfer date might be when transaction was broadcast versus confirmed. Recipients must verify claimed transfers actually occurred as trustee describes.

Some demand letters combine multiple bitcoin transfers into single preference claim. Recipient made several separate transfers to debtor and received several payments back. Trustee aggregates transfers during preference period into one claim. Recipient argues each transfer should be analyzed separately with new value offsets applied transaction by transaction. Aggregation versus separate treatment affects net preference calculation substantially.

---

Assessment

Bitcoin preferential transfer vulnerability emerges when transfers within bankruptcy lookback periods face clawback regardless of original transfer purpose. Ninety-day window applies to non-insiders while one-year period covers insider recipients. Estate planning gifts to family members encounter preference challenges despite not being debt payments. Security interest perfection transfers face analysis of whether perfection preferred secured creditor. Valuation disputes center on whether recovery uses transfer date or current bitcoin value after appreciation.

Ordinary course defenses require showing bitcoin payments followed established business patterns not altered by debtor's deteriorating finances. New value defense offsets subsequent credit extensions against prior transfers. Earmarking doctrine faces complications when bitcoin passed through debtor's custody before reaching creditor. Fraudulent transfer claims overlap preference periods creating multiple challenge theories for same transfers.

Cross-border transfers complicate enforcement when recipients and bitcoin are located beyond bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. Settlement payments within preference periods face characterization disputes about whether they created new obligations or paid antecedent debts. Litigation costs affect whether small transfers get challenged regardless of legal merit. Insider factual disputes determine applicable lookback windows. Understanding these preference mechanics explains why bitcoin transfers that seemed final when completed face recovery demands after subsequent bankruptcy filing based on timing and recipient classification rather than transfer legitimacy at the time.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

What If Incapacity Happens First With Bitcoin

Bitcoin Recovery Delayed by Probate as Court-Imposed Waiting

← Return to CustodyStress