Petitions for Remission in Crypto Asset Cases: The Gap Between Frozen and Returned

At BlockchainUnmasked, we are frequently involved in cases alongside world class legal teams that reach what looks like the breakthrough moment. The stolen cryptocurrency has been traced. An exchange, custodian, stablecoin issuer, or law enforcement agency has restricted the assets. Sometimes millions of dollars are sitting visibly on-chain, no longer moving.

The victim's question is immediate: when do I get my money back?

A freeze is not a recovery. A freeze preserves the status quo. It prevents further dissipation and creates an opportunity for recovery, but it does not determine legal ownership, extinguish competing claims, transfer title, or authorize payment to anyone. Between identifying the assets and actually returning them lies a chain of legal and administrative proceedings that most victims, and plenty of attorneys, have never worked through: restraint, seizure, forfeiture, third-party claims, victim verification, remission or restoration, and distribution.

In the United States, the petition for remission is one of the most important bridges between forfeiture and victim compensation. Since 2000, the Justice Department's victim compensation program, now overseen by the Criminal Division's Money Laundering, Narcotics and Forfeiture Section (MNF), has returned more than $12.5 billion in forfeited assets to victims of crime. The process works. But it works only when the correct procedural path is used and the loss is documented to the standard the regulations actually require.

Five rules organize everything that follows:

1. A freeze is not a recovery.

2. A petition is not a claim.

3. A trace is not title.

4. The value of the seized asset is not necessarily the victim's recoverable loss.

5. The record needed for the return should be built before the forfeiture notice arrives.

Who froze the assets, and under what authority?

Before asking whether remission applies, ask a more basic question: who froze what, under what authority, and who can actually move it? An exchange withdrawal hold, a stablecoin issuer blacklist, an OFAC block, a federal seizure, an SEC receivership restraint, a bankruptcy stay, and a foreign court order are different legal and technical states, each with its own controller and its own procedural route. Part 9 remission is a DOJ forfeiture framework. It is not a universal recovery procedure for every asset that has stopped moving.

The rest of this article concerns the federal forfeiture lane, because that is where most large crypto fraud recoveries now run. But the routing question comes first in every engagement, and getting it wrong wastes the window in which recovery is possible.

A freeze, a seizure, a forfeiture, and a return are not the same event

A private freeze or compliance hold restricts movement but decides nothing about who is legally entitled to the asset. A restraining order or seizure places property under governmental or judicial control and preserves it for possible forfeiture, but still does not resolve ownership. Forfeiture is the legal process through which the government takes title to property connected to an offense, subject to notice, claims, and due process. Remission, restoration, and restitution concern what happens afterward: whether the forfeited assets or their proceeds compensate qualifying victims.

This distinction plays out in real matters. In June 2025, the government filed a civil forfeiture complaint against more than $225 million in cryptocurrency tied to a laundering network used in crypto investment fraud, with more than 400 suspected victims identified. That seizure was a major step. It was not a distribution order, and the victims in that matter still had the entire process ahead of them.

What a petition for remission is

A petition for remission asks the government to return forfeited property, or distribute forfeiture proceeds, to a qualifying owner, lienholder, or victim. For victims, the governing framework is 28 C.F.R. Part 9, principally Sections 9.2 and 9.8. A victim under those regulations is a person who incurred a pecuniary loss as a direct result of the offense underlying the forfeiture, or a related offense that was part of the same scheme.

Several features of the process shape everything else. Remission is discretionary, not automatic, and the regulations state that they create no rights or entitlements (28 C.F.R. § 9.1(d)). It is decided on a written evidentiary record, with no hearing. In an administrative forfeiture, the seizing agency decides the petition. In a judicial forfeiture, the petition goes through the U.S. Attorney's Office and is decided by MNF. If the petition is denied, the regulations permit one request for reconsideration, generally within ten days of receiving the denial, and it must present material new information or clearly demonstrate error. DOJ's position is that judicial review of a remission denial is unavailable. In practical terms, you get one real shot, and it is the written record you file first. In crypto, this is what makes accurate forensics so valuable. The trace, the loss schedule, and the control evidence are not exhibits bolted on at the end. They are the record the decision gets made on.

Filing the right facts through the wrong vehicle

The most expensive mistake in this area is not weak evidence. It is putting the right facts into the wrong procedural lane. There are four lanes, and they are not interchangeable.

The administrative forfeiture claim. A person who wants to contest the forfeiture itself must file a timely claim that satisfies the notice and statutory requirements. A remission petition does not preserve that right, and Forfeiture.gov is explicit that filing only a petition does not preserve the right to contest the forfeiture. A claim is a sworn assertion of a legal interest, and a false or frivolous one carries consequences, so it is not filed casually. Once a claim is filed in a nonjudicial forfeiture, the government generally must file a civil forfeiture complaint, obtain an indictment with a forfeiture allegation, or return the property, ordinarily within 90 days, subject to statutory extensions. Filing the claim preserves the opportunity for judicial adjudication. It does not guarantee return of the property, in-kind relief, or appreciation. A claimant who ultimately proves a superior ownership interest and receives the property in kind keeps the appreciation, but that is a possible outcome of the lane, not an automatic feature of it.

The criminal ancillary petition. When property is ordered forfeited in a criminal case, a third party asserting a legal interest in that specific property may petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Rule 32.2. That is a judicial proceeding about title, not a request for compensation.

The victim remission petition. Many victims who suffered a direct financial loss but cannot establish a legally superior interest in specific forfeited property will look to remission. A petitioner can sometimes proceed as both owner and victim, and a recognized ownership interest can carry priority over non-owner victims. The regulation is explicit: a victim may concurrently request remission as an owner, and a victim granted remission as both takes the priority accorded to owners (28 C.F.R. § 9.8). A judicial claim and a remission petition can also be filed in parallel. The petition does not preserve the claim, DOJ ordinarily resolves the claim first, and the sworn filings must be drafted consistently, so counsel should coordinate both positions and review any requested release, settlement, or withdrawal before execution. Whether cryptocurrency that moved through wallets, bridges, mixers, and omnibus exchange accounts remains "owned" by a particular victim is a legal question for counsel, and it is worth understanding why tracing alone cannot answer it. Once coins enter an omnibus account or a laundering pool, they are commingled with other deposits, and doctrines built for tracing value through commingled bank accounts do not map cleanly onto swap, bridge, and wrap events that change the very asset being traced. A forensic trace can show, to a high degree of confidence, where the value went. Whether the claimant still owns identifiable property at the end of that path is a distinct legal conclusion, and the reviewers deciding these petitions know the difference.

Restoration and court-ordered restitution. Where a federal restitution order identifies victims and their losses, the U.S. Attorney's Office can ask DOJ to transfer net forfeiture proceeds to the court for distribution under that order. Victims generally do not file individual petitions in a restoration, and DOJ describes it as typically faster than remission. BitConnect illustrates the court-ordered restitution side of the same machinery: after the government liquidated roughly $56 million in crypto seized from the scheme's top U.S. promoter, a federal court in San Diego ordered more than $17 million distributed to approximately 800 victims in over 40 countries. The public record establishes the restitution order and the distribution; whether funds moved through the technical Part 9 restoration mechanism is a docket-level question, and keeping that distinction straight is exactly the kind of precision this area demands.

Victim status itself is not always obvious, and the Bitfinex hack is the cautionary tale every practitioner should know. When the government recovered more than 94,000 BTC tied to the 2016 hack, individual account holders assumed the recovery was theirs. The litigation went the other way. Because the defendants were convicted of laundering the proceeds rather than the hack itself, the government took the position that neither the exchange nor its account holders were victims under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. In an April 2025 memorandum opinion in United States v. Lichtenstein (D.D.C.), the court awarded zero mandatory restitution, declined to hold a restitution hearing, and directed that disposition of the forfeited assets proceed through the Rule 32.2 ancillary process, where Bitfinex and individual claimants asserting ownership of stolen coins had to establish their legal interests in competition with one another. The government had separately proposed returning the coins to the exchange in kind under voluntary provisions tied to the plea agreements. Whatever the ultimate disposition of that $9 billion pool, the practitioner lesson is fixed: which lane your client can occupy, and whether anyone is a victim of the specific offense of conviction, are questions to answer at the start of the engagement, not after the distribution plan is set.

The five things a victim must demonstrate

Under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8, a victim petition has to establish five elements, and weak petitions usually fail on the same ones.

A specific, documented pecuniary loss. "Approximately $500,000" is not a loss figure. The amount must reconcile to source records: transfers, transaction hashes, account statements, bank records, and anything that came back.

Direct causation. The loss must flow from the offense underlying the forfeiture, not merely from the same relationship or the same bad actor. Ordinary market losses, underperformance, and losses incurred after the victim regained control of assets are not compensable just because fraud occurred somewhere in the story.

No knowing participation or willful blindness. This does not automatically disqualify the unwitting intermediary or money mule, and DOJ's guidance recognizes that. But if the petitioner received commissions, forwarded third-party funds, recruited others, or operated accounts for the perpetrators, the petition should confront it directly. Silence invites the reviewer to infer the worst.

No prior compensation for the same loss. Every chargeback, insurance payment, platform withdrawal, civil settlement, and recovered coin must be disclosed and netted. A petitioner granted remission who later receives compensation for the same loss from another source must reimburse the Assets Forfeiture Fund to the extent of that compensation (28 C.F.R. § 9.8).

No reasonably available recourse to other assets. A judgment against an insolvent defendant is not meaningful recourse, but the petition should say so and explain the status and collectability of every judgment, award, insurance claim, or pending action.

What a victim can actually recover in these specific instances

Prepare clients for the valuation rule, because it surprises almost everyone. For a non-owner victim, recoverable loss is generally the fair market value of the property at the time the victim was deprived of it (28 C.F.R. § 9.8(c)), subject to the governing program's approved methodology; large fraud programs may apply a net cash-in, cash-out approach rather than marking each token at a quoted price. A victim who lost 20 Bitcoin at $25,000 has a $500,000 loss, no matter what those coins are worth on distribution day, and payment in a victim remission typically comes as cash from liquidated assets. Owner remission is different: the regulations give the ruling official discretion to remit the property itself or its monetary equivalent (28 C.F.R. § 9.7), and in-kind outcomes also arise through ownership claims and case-specific arrangements. The strategic consequence is easy to miss. The lane can determine whether your client captures the asset's appreciation or is locked to its value on the day of the loss.

Valuation gets harder when the asset is thinly traded, manipulated, depegged, or priced only on a fraudulent platform's screen. The petition should identify the exact token contract, the venue, the deprivation time and time zone, and a pricing source that reflects realizable value rather than a nominal quote, computed transaction by transaction so the government can recalculate the figure independently.

Remission does not cover foregone interest, anticipated profits, attorney fees, forensic or accounting expenses, or the costs of chasing the perpetrator. And even a fully recognized loss cannot exceed the victim's share of net forfeiture proceeds after government costs, administration expenses, and valid third-party claims. Where losses exceed the pool, recognized victims share pro rata, and the math is usually sobering: OneCoin victims lost more than $4 billion worldwide, against a remission pool of about $40 million. The process can also deliver. The Madoff Victim Fund paid over $4.3 billion to more than 40,000 victims in 127 countries across seven years of distributions, restoring 93.71 percent of recognized fraud losses.

Patience belongs in the client conversation from the start.

One more rule cuts both ways. A victim does not always have to prove that their exact coins sit among the forfeited assets. Remission reaches victims of the offense underlying the forfeiture and related offenses in the same scheme, so a victim whose funds entered a forfeited laundering pool can qualify even though their specific units were swapped, bridged, or dissipated long before the seizure. The other half: tracing your exact units into the pool does not ordinarily elevate you above other recognized victims, because distribution among recognized victims is generally ratable and priority comes from recognized ownership, not from the quality of the investigative trace. What tracing wins are the earlier fights: connecting the loss to the scheme at all, identifying which forfeiture action covers your client's funds, and establishing victim status in matters where the government's forfeiture theory is network-level rather than victim-level, as it increasingly is in large laundering cases.

What the evidence must do

A blockchain trace is essential in most of these matters. It is not a petition. The distinction is worth stating precisely:

One distinction deserves special emphasis because it is the most common overreach we see in victim-prepared materials: a trace into an exchange deposit address identifies a service, not the customer behind the deposit. Internal account crediting, KYC identity, subsequent withdrawals, and residual balances ordinarily require custodian records, voluntary cooperation, or legal process. A credible report separates service attribution from customer attribution and states the evidentiary basis for each.

We approach petition readiness as evidence development, and the package has eight components.

1. Procedural identifiers. The seizing agency, asset identification number, forfeiture notice, docket, and government contact, so there is no ambiguity about which assets and which proceeding the petition concerns.

2. A sworn victim narrative. A chronological account of the contact, the representations, the transfers, the discovery of the fraud, and the recovery efforts, separating what the victim personally observed from what investigators later determined.

3. Source-of-funds evidence. Bank statements, wire confirmations, exchange exports, and documentation of prior holdings. The regulations expressly contemplate this showing (28 C.F.R. § 9.3).

4. A transaction-level loss schedule. Date and time normalized to UTC, chain, token and contract, quantity, transaction hash, sending and receiving addresses, exchange account identifiers, fiat value at transfer, amounts returned, and net loss, with swaps, bridges, and fees explained rather than omitted.

5. A reproducible forensic report. The path from victim-controlled sources into the scheme's infrastructure and, where possible, into the seized addresses, with every attribution labeled by basis and confidence. Custodian confirmations and legal-process returns are not the same evidence as behavioral clustering or public labels, and a credible report says which is which.

6. Ownership and control evidence. KYC records, original exchange exports, wallet creation records, or in appropriate circumstances a signed message from the wallet. Screenshots corroborate what the victim saw, and can be indispensable when a fraudulent platform disappears, but they do not prove themselves: support them with originals, metadata, and exports wherever possible.

7. A defensible loss calculation. A figure capable of independent recalculation, with the pricing source, time zone, fee treatment, and every offset disclosed.

8. Evidentiary integrity. Preserved originals, retained metadata, hashed and logged files, documented chain of custody, and work another qualified analyst could reproduce without taking anything on faith.

Why petitions fail

We see the same failures on repeat.

• The wrong remedy was selected. An ownership claim or ancillary deadline lapsed while a petition sat in a queue.

• A deadline was missed. Administrative claims, Part 9 petitions, judicial claims, ancillary petitions, reconsideration requests, and administrator bar dates all run on different clocks. There is no single forfeiture deadline; the governing notice, order, or authorized portal controls, and no strategy should depend on discretionary late acceptance.

• The petition proved a transaction but not causation. The wallet path was documented without connecting the loss to the offense underlying the actual forfeiture.

• The evidence was screenshots alone. No exchange exports, bank records, transaction files, or reliable account identifiers behind them.

• The loss was overstated. Current token value, expected profits, professional fees, or the entire balance of a wallet holding many victims' funds.

• Prior recoveries were omitted. Payments from the perpetrator, platform withdrawals, settlements, and insurance were not netted.

• The petitioner assumed traceability created priority. It strengthens causation. It does not jump the line.

• Apparent participation was left unexplained. Commissions, forwarded funds, and operated accounts invite the reviewer to infer knowing participation or willful blindness.

A strong petition anticipates the government's questions instead of presenting only the friendly facts.

Significance to investor counsel

We work across the entire range of crypto investment disputes: arbitration, civil litigation, bankruptcy, criminal referral, and forfeiture, and the tracks increasingly run at once. An arbitration award or civil judgment establishes liability and quantifies loss. It does not create a superior interest in specific cryptocurrency already subject to federal forfeiture. Under 28 C.F.R. § 9.6(f), a judgment creditor is recognized as a lienholder in the remission process only if the judgment was duly recorded before the seizure, a valid lien on the particular property attached before the seizure under applicable law, and the regulation's knowledge condition is satisfied. Criminal ancillary proceedings run on a different statutory framework, including the relation-back and third-party provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 853, under which the government's interest can vest as of the time of the offense. The two analyses should not be collapsed into a single timing rule, and neither is friendly to a lien theory: how a lien attaches to and is perfected against an intangible token is unsettled in ways conventional asset law is not. The safe working assumption is that a money judgment alone buys nothing in the forfeiture, and any lien theory has to be built deliberately, early, and with the specific property in view.

Report the loss to IC3 and the investigating agency early, with complete transaction identifiers. Early reporting improves the odds that investigators connect your client to a wallet cluster or a later forfeiture action, but it does not substitute for monitoring. Watch Forfeiture.gov, the relevant dockets, and any authorized administrator directly, because forfeiture notices identify property by wallet address and amount, not by your client's name, and notification practices vary by case and victim pool.

Parallel proceedings create a consistency problem as well as a deadline problem. The loss figure and transaction narrative should reconcile across the IC3 report, arbitration pleadings, civil complaint, bankruptcy proof of claim, insurance submission, tax records, and any petition, and differences should be explained before the government finds them. Decide early how the forensic engagement is structured for privilege, work product, and expert disclosure. And use civil and arbitral discovery, exchange productions, KYC records, and account histories to build the same record that will later support the petition. Evaluate the lanes separately, run the strategy in parallel rather than in sequence, and remember that a client can occupy more than one posture. Waiting for the arbitration to conclude can mean the remission window closed months earlier.

The first 72 hours

The best remission package is not assembled years later from screenshots and memory. It begins when the engagement begins.

1. Identify the actor and authority. Exchange hold, issuer blacklist, OFAC block, warrant, restraining order, receiver, bankruptcy, or foreign process. The routing determines everything downstream.

2. Capture every identifier. Wallet addresses, transaction hashes, token contracts, case numbers, forfeiture notices, custodian ticket numbers, and government contacts.

3. Preserve originals and metadata. Bank and exchange exports, emails, chat files, platform data, and device records. Screenshots support the record; they are not the record.

4. Snapshot the chain and valuation inputs. Balances, transfers, contracts, UTC timestamps, and the pricing methodology for each loss event.

5. Determine the lane with counsel and calendar every deadline. A remission petition does not preserve an ownership challenge.

6. Connect the victim to the investigation. A complete IC3 or agency submission with transaction identifiers, followed by independent monitoring of official notices.

7. Open a master loss-and-recovery ledger. One reconciled schedule that will serve the criminal matter, arbitration, civil action, insurance, tax reporting, and any petition.

8. Limit public disclosure. Publishing addresses, theories, or freeze details prematurely can complicate preservation and legal process.

When the freeze is outside the United States

There is no international petition for remission. When assets are frozen abroad, the threshold questions are who imposed the restriction and whether it is private or governmental; which law governs the property and the proceeding; whether the assets are held for a domestic prosecution, a foreign request, or a U.S. proceeding; and which remedy fits, from a proprietary claim to a release application to a local compensation process. In the United Kingdom, the crypto wallet freezing regime under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 lets a person claiming the assets apply to the court for release, a local judicial remedy rather than a Part 9 petition. In the EU, Directive 2024/1260 requires member states to account for victim restitution and compensation in asset recovery, with procedures depending on national implementation. Where the United States pursues assets abroad, the work runs through MNF and the Office of International Affairs on treaty timelines that depend entirely on the foreign jurisdiction.

Foreign residency does not disqualify a victim from a U.S. program. The Madoff Victim Fund compensated victims in 127 countries; what controlled was whether each petitioner met the fund's eligibility standards, not where the petitioner lived. Involve local counsel early. The blockchain is borderless. Legal authority over exchanges, custodians, and seized property is not.

Scale, administrators, and the second scam

Modern crypto fraud produces victim pools in the thousands, and DOJ increasingly appoints professional claims administrators, with administration costs deducted from the pool before distribution. Those allowable costs come out first, but under DOJ's stated priorities, recognized victims ordinarily precede official-use and equitable-sharing distributions to law enforcement. The OneCoin and AirBit Club programs, each announced in 2026 with a dedicated administrator and authorized portal, are the current model. At that scale, a compensation program is infrastructure: secure intake, identity verification, duplicate detection, loss calculation, and prior-recovery reconciliation, which is investigative and data work as much as legal work. Bar dates for live programs belong on a calendar, not in an article: check the authorized portal and the government’s own notices for the operative deadline on the day you advise a client, because only those sources control.

One warning belongs in every client engagement, and counsel should deliver it at the outset rather than after the damage is done. The moment a remission program is announced, the recovery scammers arrive: fake administrators, agents charging fees to file free petitions, and demands for payment to unlock an approved distribution. DOJ is explicit that neither the Department nor its administrators will ever ask a victim to pay to participate. We have investigated fake recovery operations that charged real money to people who had already been robbed once, and the pitch almost always reaches the client directly, not through their lawyer. Clients should be told to verify any administrator against the government’s own notices at justice.gov and forfeiture.gov, and to route every unsolicited contact through counsel before sending anyone a document or a dollar.

Start preparing for the return at the beginning of the trace

We treat recovery as four connected tracks:

• Trace and preserve. Identify the assets, document the path, notify custodians and issuers where appropriate, and work with law enforcement to prevent further dissipation.

• Convert preservation into lawful process. A private hold or issuer blacklist can preserve assets, but it does not itself authorize return, and its duration is a function of contract, policy, and applicable law rather than anything the victim controls. The next step depends on who controls the asset and what lawful process reaches it.

• Build the victim record. Identity, source of funds, causation, ownership and control, loss amount, prior recoveries, and evidentiary integrity, developed to the standard the reviewer will apply.

• Prepare for adjudication and distribution. The correct filing in the correct lane, deadline monitoring, support for counsel, and claims infrastructure where the victim pool is large.

The same discipline will matter more, not less, as tokenization spreads. A token may evidence an entitlement without being the legally controlling ownership record: issuer books, transfer agent records, custody agreements, registries, and governing law may determine the right the token represents. Code can restrict transfer. It cannot, by itself, adjudicate beneficial ownership, creditor priority, or victim entitlement. The gap between what the ledger shows and what the law recognizes is the same gap this article has been describing, and it is about to run through far more of the financial system.

A note on roles. BlockchainUnmasked is not a law firm. Our role is to trace assets, preserve and explain blockchain evidence, support control and attribution, and build reproducible loss schedules to the standard a reviewer will apply. Qualified counsel selects the procedural vehicle, preserves the deadlines, and advocates before the court, agency, or administrator. The strongest recoveries we have supported are the ones where both functions started on day one.

Frozen is a status. Forfeited is a legal result. Remitted, restored, or otherwise distributed is a victim outcome. The transparency of a public blockchain makes cryptocurrency uniquely traceable, but a transaction hash does not establish ownership, a service label does not identify the customer behind an omnibus account, and a seizure does not guarantee compensation. Each step is the foundation for the next, and the work is not finished when the assets stop moving. In many respects, that is where the victim recovery process begins.

Selected authorities

1. 28 C.F.R. Part 9 (Regulations Governing the Remission or Mitigation of Administrative, Civil, and Criminal Forfeitures), particularly §§ 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.6, 9.7, and 9.8, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-I/part-9.

2. 18 U.S.C. § 983; 21 U.S.C. § 853(c), (n); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2; Supplemental Rule G.

3. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual, ch. 14 (Using Forfeiture to Compensate Victims of Crime).

4. Forfeiture.gov, Filing a Petition and Filing a Claim, https://www.forfeiture.gov/FilingPetition.htm.

5. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Criminal Division, Victims, https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-mnf/victims.

6. DOJ Office of Public Affairs, OneCoin remission announcement (Apr. 13, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-compensation-process-onecoin-fraud-victims-funds-recovered.

7. DOJ Office of Public Affairs, AirBit Club remission announcement (May 2026), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-department-justice-announces-compensation-process-victims-airbit-club-fraud-scheme.

8. DOJ Office of Public Affairs, Madoff Victim Fund tenth and final distribution (Dec. 30, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-departments-10th-distribution-brings-total-provided-over-43b-nearly-full-recovery.

9. U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, $225 million USDT civil forfeiture complaint (June 2025), https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/largest-ever-seizure-funds-related-crypto-confidence-scams.

10. United States v. Lichtenstein, No. 1:23-cr-239 (CKK) (D.D.C.), including the April 2025 memorandum opinion on restitution and ancillary proceedings, https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/2016-bitfinex-hack.

11. DOJ and USAO S.D. Cal. BitConnect restitution announcements (Jan. 2023), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/victims-bitconnect-scheme-receive-more-17-million-compensate-losses.

12. Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (UK), sch. 10; Directive (EU) 2024/1260.

---

BlockchainUnmasked is a blockchain forensics and intelligence firm supporting law enforcement, regulators, attorneys, and victims of cryptocurrency crime. This article is general educational information, not legal advice. The governing notice, proceeding, and law of the relevant jurisdiction should be reviewed by qualified counsel. Research current through August 10, 2026.