header-logo header-logo

24 May 2024 / Nick Barnard
Issue: 8072 / Categories: Features , Profession , Crypto , Cyber , Cybercrime , Technology
printer mail-detail

Crime fighters put cryptoassets in their sights

174011
Criminals love them, but now enforcement agencies have the statutory tools to fight back, writes Nick Barnard
  • On 26 April 2024, amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into force, giving law enforcement new tools to freeze, seize or even destroy cryptoassets.
  • Explains crypto-wallet freezing orders and crypto-wallet forfeiture orders.
  • The new orders are based on the Account Freezing Order regime.

Since their ascent to mainstream attention over the past decade, cryptoassets have proved a vexed challenge for law enforcement agencies (LEAs), particularly those charged with disrupting money-laundering and recovering the proceeds of crime.

Unlike cash (which exists only in physical form) or funds in bank accounts (which are controlled by a regulated third party with established law as to ownership and location), cryptoassets represent a new form of liquid digital value, which can be held and transferred in entirely new ways.

As a starting point, the infrastructure of cryptoassets generally makes no provision for recording or enforcing the ‘owner’ of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll