In short
- South Korea’s Supreme Court docket dominated that Bitcoin held in alternate accounts is topic to seizure beneath the Prison Process Act.
- The choice arose from a cash laundering case involving 55.6 Bitcoin seized by police in 2020.
- The ruling aligns with earlier rulings within the nation, which has a excessive price of crypto possession.
South Korea’s Supreme Court docket has dominated that Bitcoin held on cryptocurrency exchanges may be seized beneath the nation’s Prison Process Act, closing a authorized problem introduced by a suspect in a cash laundering investigation.
The choice, first reported by Chosun Day by day, confirms that digital belongings saved on exchanges qualify as seizure targets throughout legal investigations, regardless that they don’t exist in bodily type.
South Korea has one of many highest charges of cryptocurrency possession globally. As of March 2025, greater than 16 million folks—roughly a 3rd of the inhabitants—held crypto accounts at main home exchanges.
The case stemmed from a police seizure of 55.6 Bitcoin, value about 600 million Korean received ($413,000) on the time, from an alternate account held by a person recognized solely as Mr. A. The belongings have been taken as a part of a cash laundering investigation.
Mr. A later filed a movement for reconsideration, claiming that Bitcoin held in an alternate account couldn’t be seized as a result of it was not a “bodily object” beneath Article 106 of the Prison Process Act. That provision permits authorities to grab proof or objects topic to confiscation if they’re acknowledged as being associated to a legal case.
The Seoul Central District Court docket dismissed the movement, ruling that the seizure was lawful. Mr. A then filed an extra enchantment to the Supreme Court docket in December.
In its remaining ruling, the Supreme Court docket rejected the argument that Bitcoin falls outdoors the scope of seizure regulation. “Underneath the Prison Process Act, seizure targets embody each tangible objects and digital info,” the court docket mentioned, in line with Chosun Day by day.
The court docket added that Bitcoin, “as an digital token with the power to be independently managed, traded, and considerably managed by way of financial worth,” qualifies as an asset that may be seized by courts or investigative companies.
“The disposition on this case, which seized Bitcoin beneath Mr. A’s title managed by a digital asset alternate, is lawful, and there’s no error within the decrease court docket’s resolution to dismiss the movement for reconsideration,” the ruling mentioned.
The choice is in line with a collection of earlier South Korean court docket rulings which have handled cryptocurrencies as property or belongings. In 2018, the Supreme Court docket held that Bitcoin is an intangible property with financial worth and may be confiscated if obtained by legal exercise. That very same 12 months, crypto tokens have been acknowledged as divisible belongings in divorce proceedings.
In 2021, the court docket additional clarified that Bitcoin constitutes a digital asset that embodies financial worth, and is taken into account a property curiosity beneath legal regulation.
Different jurisdictions have taken comparable approaches, classifying digital belongings as property for authorized and enforcement functions.
Final month, the UK handed laws formally recognizing digital belongings as property, giving them the identical authorized standing as conventional types of property. The regulation goals to offer clearer steerage for courts dealing with instances involving theft, inheritance, and insolvency associated to crypto belongings.
The UK laws builds on suggestions from the Regulation Fee of England and Wales and supplies statutory backing to authorized ideas that had beforehand developed by widespread regulation.
Such measures are supposed to enhance readability and enforcement in instances involving digital belongings, notably the place legal proceeds and asset restoration are involved.
Etay Katz, head of digital belongings at regulation agency Ashurst, advised Decrypt on the time that the regulation was “a welcome and well timed statutory recognition of the basic property high quality in crypto belongings.”
