The law can often struggle to keep up with new technologies and crypto is no exception. However, recent case law, together with new legal mechanisms, have given crypto owners new tools to protect their valuable assets.
This blog explores the powers available to enforcement agencies, how recent case law – particularly Sachs v Snape [2025] EWHC 1746 (Comm) – illustrates the civil remedies available to cryptoasset holders, and how individuals can respond when their cryptoassets are frozen.
In April 2024, the UK took a significant step forward in tackling crypto-related crime with the introduction of Crypto Wallet Freezing Orders (“CWFOs”) and Crypto Wallet Forfeiture Orders.
These powers, introduced via the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, amended the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and have since become a key tool for enforcement agencies.
A CWFO is a civil order that allows enforcement agencies to freeze cryptoassets held in wallets administered by UK-connected crypto service providers.
It is essentially a type of interim injunction granted by the court to prevent a party from dealing with or disposing of their cryptoassets.
The threshold for obtaining a CWFO is low and merely requires an enforcement agency to have “reasonable grounds” to suspect that the cryptoassets are either the proceeds of crime or intended for use in unlawful conduct.
CWFOs are typically granted by the Magistrates’ Court and importantly, can be made without notice. This has raised concerns about judicial oversight, particularly given the technical complexity of cryptoassets.
If following investigations while the CFWO is in place the authorities believe the cryptoassets to be criminal in nature, be it via their source or intended use, they may look to apply for a Crypto Wallet Forfeiture Order.
If the court later finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the assets are criminal in nature, a Crypto Wallet Forfeiture Order may be made, permanently depriving the holder of the assets – subject to any appeal by the affected party.
However, CWFOs are only available to enforcement agencies. Whereas, as Sachs v Snape demonstrates, freezing orders can be sought by private claimants in civil proceedings to preserve assets pending resolution of claims such as fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract.
The court in Sachs v Snape reaffirmed that cryptocurrency is capable of being treated as property under the laws of England and Wales.
By treating crypto as property, the court have opened the doors for owners to advance proprietary claims – these allow a claimant to trace and recover specific assets, rather than merely seeking damages.
Th decision in Sachs v Snape aligns with the reasoning in Tulip Trading Ltd v Van Der Laan [2023] EWCA Civ 83, and confirms that proprietary remedies, including proprietary injunctions, are available in crypto disputes.
This provides a strong foundation for individuals seeking to protect their cryptoassets through civil litigation.
In Sachs v Snape, the court applied the new model freezing order under revised CPR Part 25, which clarifies the distinction between proprietary and general freezing relief. This procedural development is particularly relevant for crypto disputes, where claimants often assert both ownership and enforcement rights.
One of the key aspects of the case was the court’s willingness to grant freezing orders against “persons unknown” – namely, anonymous holders of crypto wallets suspected of receiving the misappropriated assets.
This reflects a growing understanding of the decentralised nature of crypto and the need for flexible remedies.
The court’s approach allows victims to preserve assets even when the ultimate recipient is obscured by pseudonymity or offshore structures.
If you are served with a CWFO or face asset freezing in a civil dispute, consider the following steps:
CWFOs and Crypto Wallet Forfeiture Orders are powerful tools for enforcement agencies but as Sachs v Snape shows, individuals and businesses can also use civil law mechanisms to protect their interests and recover assets.
As the legal framework continues to develop, it is important that individuals and businesses involved in crypto remain vigilant and well-advised.
Our London based solicitors have the expertise to deal with the legal issues that surround cryptoassets.
If you have concerns about your cryptoassets, please contact Waterfront here and a member of our team will be in touch.
UK Supreme Court to rule on AI patent law: Can artificial neural networks be patented? Emotional Perception case could reshape UK IP landscape.
Immersive and interactive artworks are growing in popularity across the world, with hundreds being created…
In an increasingly competitive market where innovation, aesthetics, and brand identity are critical assets UK businesses must take a strategic approach to intellectual property (IP) protection. Whether you’re a fashion brand, tech firm, or start-up, building and maintaining a strong IP portfolio is essential for long-term value and commercial success.