Seizure of Cryptocurrencies: When Private Keys Become Material «Things»

1. The facts

   The case stems from an investigation into the crimes of self-money laundering and aggravated fraud, in which the judicial authority ordered the preventive seizure of several physical storage devices (cold wallets) and the relative alphanumeric access strings. According to reports from specialized publications such as Altalex and Guida al Diritto, the suspect allegedly used blockchain circuits to shield illicit profits, relying on the apparent intangibility of digital tokens.

   The proceedings, which reached the Supreme Court after an appeal against the order of the Review Court, focused on the possibility of applying a legal bond to assets that do not physically exist in the analog world. The lower courts had confirmed the seizure based on the discovery, during a search, of so-called seed phrases written on paper supports, which guaranteed exclusive control of the digital wallets.

2. 

   The rules at stake

   The legal basis lies in Art. 321 c.p.p., which governs the preventive seizure of things pertaining to the crime to prevent their availability from aggravating the consequences of the wrongdoing. This rule operates in conjunction with Art. 240 c.p., aimed at the confiscation of profit, and with the definition of virtual currency contained in anti-money laundering legislation, which identifies it as a digital representation of value.

   Furthermore, Art. 810 c.c. is decisive, applied by extension, which defines assets as things that can be the object of rights. The consequence of this qualification is that the removal of the private key is equated to the dispossession of a movable asset, allowing the application of the typical real precautionary measures of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. What the case law says

   The Supreme Court case law has clarified that cryptocurrencies must be considered material things for the purposes of criminal law. The core principle establishes that, although the token is digital data, its «apprehension» occurs through the possession of the physical supports or codes that allow its transfer. Materiality thus transfers from the asset to the key that unlocks it.

   Regarding the periculum in mora, the judges highlighted how market volatility and the ease of concealing digital assets fully justify the seizure. The speed with which a suspect can transfer funds to anonymous wallets or mixers makes the risk of profit dispersion intrinsic to the nature of the asset itself, necessitating immediate precautionary protection.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Always verify whether the seizure affects the tokens directly or the physical media, as the defensive strategy on the relevance of the asset changes drastically.
   2. Monitor the management of the seized value: given market volatility, the lawyer must evaluate requests for early liquidation to prevent the asset's value from dropping to zero during the trial.
   3. Distinguish between mere information (a memorized password) and physical media (a post-it or a wallet), as only the latter allows for immediate material apprehension without the suspect's cooperation.

References: Art. 321 c.p.p.Art. 240 c.p.Art. 810 c.c.Art. 648-ter.1 c.p.D.Lgs. 231/2007

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 6 September 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction