Stolen cryptocurrencies after phishing: Your legal options

Challenges with stolen cryptocurrencies

Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ether enable the decentralized asset management. At the same time, new forms of property crime are emerging, particularly through phishing, hacking, or social engineering attacks. Unlike with traditional property, there is no clear legal allocation of ownership, which means that legal classification of stolen cryptocurrencies becomes a complex task.

This article addresses the question, on what legal basis cryptocurrencies can be classified, This article will examine the civil and criminal claims that may exist and the role of blockchain as evidence. The case of a private investor who fell victim to a phishing attack will serve as an illustration.

Facts: Phishing and theft of cryptocurrencies

A is a private investor who held cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ether) worth approximately €75,000 in a self-managed wallet. The private keys and seed phrase were known only to A.

In January 2025, A received a deceptively authentic-looking email from a supposed crypto service provider, asking him to verify his wallet via a link. In good faith, A entered his seed phrase. Shortly thereafter, all of his cryptocurrencies were transferred to various wallets without his consent.

Part of the funds ended up in an account on a European trading platform that collects KYC data. The account holder is B. It is unclear whether B committed the fraudulent act himself or merely forwarded the cryptocurrencies. A is demanding the return of the funds or compensation and has filed a criminal complaint for fraud.

Key problems with stolen cryptocurrencies

1. Cryptocurrencies defy the classic property law classification (§ 90 BGB).
2. Control over the private key only establishes de facto, not legal, dominion.
3. The legal classification is functionally based on the legal grounds for acquiring the power of disposal.
4. In the absence of property law claims for surrender, Section 812 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Alternative 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is central.
5. Acquisition in good faith is excluded, since cryptocurrencies are not tangible goods.
6. Blockchain data is legally valid, but it does not replace personal identification.
7. Criminal law primarily serves to identify the perpetrator, not to reverse the civil proceedings.
8. Existing civil law instruments are sufficient, but in practice they fail due to the pseudonymous structure of decentralized systems.

Civil claims in cases of stolen cryptocurrencies

Recovery of stolen cryptocurrencies pursuant to Section 812 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Alternative 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB).

• B has gained a financial advantage through cryptocurrencies.
• At the expense of A
• Without legal basis (Seed phrase was obtained through deception)

Result: A claim for restitution or compensation for value generally exists. Enforceability depends on the Attribution of the wallet to B from.

Tort claims in cases of crypto fraud and phishing

• Section 823 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with Section 263a of the German Criminal Code (StGB) (computer fraud) is only possible against B if there is active participation.
• Mere forwarding without knowledge does not give rise to tort liability.

Exclusion of the acquisition of cryptocurrencies in good faith

• Sections 932 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB) are not applicable by analogy.
• Onward transfer of encumbered cryptocurrencies remains illegal

Criminal classification of phishing and crypto fraud

In criminal law, in particular a Criminal complaint filed against persons unknown for fraud pursuant to Section 263 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) and for computer fraud pursuant to Section 263a of the German Criminal Code (StGB). This is a possibility. The criminal proceedings primarily serve to identify the perpetrators and to secure and evaluate relevant evidence. The return of the acquired cryptocurrencies, however, does not occur within the criminal proceedings themselves, but rather generally under civil law.

Blockchain as evidence in cases of stolen cryptocurrencies

The blockchain represents a A complete and unalterable transaction history is available, which allows all cryptocurrency transfers to be technically traced.. These data provide significant evidence for the allocation of assets within the context of legal assessment. However, for successful enforcement of claims, it is additionally necessary to assign the respective wallet to a natural person, for example by evaluating KYC data, IP addresses, or other communication records.

European and international aspects of crypto theft

At the European level, the MiCA Regulation (EU) Crypto service providers are subject to extended due diligence and transparency obligations, but without establishing an independent legal doctrine of property ownership for cryptocurrencies. Furthermore, in cross-border cases, complex questions regularly arise regarding international jurisdiction, applicable law, and the practical enforceability and execution of civil claims.

Expert opinion result

1. Claim A against B pursuant to Section 812 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Alternative 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB): generally given, depending on the personal attribution of the wallet
2. Tort claims only if B was involved in fraud
3. Acquisition in good faith: excluded
4. Blockchain: technically unambiguous proof, legally only circumstantial
5. Criminal law: serves Clarification, not reversal

Conclusion on the legal classification of stolen cryptocurrencies

The legal classification of stolen cryptocurrencies is functionally determined via the Legal basis for obtaining the power of disposal, not about property. The Blockchain provides clues, However, this does not replace attribution. Unjust enrichment constitutes the central civil law mechanism for recovery, while criminal law primarily serves to identify the perpetrator.

Experience shows that existing regulations are generally suitable, but the reversal is due to the pseudonymous structure is often difficult. In the long term, creating a independent property law doctrine for digital assets necessary.

Crypto Investigation We support victims of crypto fraud in objectively assessing the events and in the technical and structured analysis of transaction data, payment methods, and platform structures. The goal is to present suspicious processes in a comprehensible manner and to create a solid foundation for further legal or regulatory action.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions on the Legal Classification of Stolen Cryptocurrencies