How OSINT and blockchain forensics can help identify and document crypto assets, companies, holdings, real estate and digital asset trails in the estate.
Whitepaper 2026
Executive Summary
An inheritance doesn't just transfer known accounts, real estate, and securities. Other items can also be included in the estate. Corporate investments, receivables, foreign assets, digital business models and cryptocurrencies The aim of asset disclosure is not to promise to uncover all assets, but rather to systematically identify, verify, and document reliable investigative approaches.
An asset can be part of an estate even though no one knows about it. With digital assets, the paradoxical situation can arise that the asset is visible but inaccessible without the means to access it.
Germany records approximately one million deaths each year – around 1,006,600 in 2025 (1,007,758 in 2024). According to Destatis, inheritances and bequests totaled €77.9 billion in 2025 (+18.1% in 2024); after deducting liabilities and including other acquisitions, the taxable assets amounted to €87.3 billion, with inheritance tax assessed rising to €13.3 billion. Most transfers of assets fall within the tax-free allowances and are therefore not included in the statistics.
| Key figure Germany | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Deaths | 1.007.758 | 1.006.600 |
| Assets from inheritances/legacies that are taken into account for tax purposes | EUR 64.1 billion | EUR 87.3 billion |
| Assessed inheritance tax | 8.5 billion EUR | 13.3 billion EUR |
Source: Federal Statistical Office (Destatis).
Digital assets and access are often not documented for the event of death: According to Bitkom (2025), only 32 % of the internet user Their digital legacy has been fully settled (16 % fully, 16 % partially) – in 2021 this figure was 40 %. A further 22 % are planning a settlement, 43 % have neither done so nor intend to.
The more digital assets are managed, the greater the gap can become between legal heirship and actually traceable or accessible assets.
8 out of 100 respondents aged 16 and over have already purchased cryptocurrencies, another 4 are definitely planning to do so, and 14 can imagine doing so (Bitkom 2025). This figure cannot be directly extrapolated to deceased individuals because cryptocurrency use is strongly age-dependent. A purely hypothetical calculation: If 2, 5, or 8 out of the approximately 1 million annual deaths were among them, this would roughly correspond to 20,000, 50,000, or 80,000 estates with prior cryptocurrency activity – explicitly not a measured statistic or a forecast.
According to Section 1922 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the entire estate passes to the heir(s) – including assets that are initially unknown to the heir(s). This also applies to digital rights: In 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled (III ZR 183/17) that a user agreement for a social network generally passes to the heir(s). Digital legal relationships are not automatically excluded from inheritance.
In the case of multiple heirs, the estate becomes joint property (§ 2032 German Civil Code), and is generally managed and disposed of jointly (§§ 2038, 2040 German Civil Code). If a co-heir finds a hardware wallet or seed phrase, they should not transfer, exchange, or sell the contents unilaterally. Technical access does not replace the power of disposition under inheritance law.
There is no general right to information among co-heirs. However, information can be requested from the possessor of the inheritance (§ 2027 BGB), from members of the deceased's household regarding inheritance transactions and the whereabouts of estate assets (§ 2028 BGB), and among co-heirs regarding gifts subject to equalization (§ 2057 BGB) – the leverage when a relative has taken possession of hardware wallets, documents, or devices.
Heirs are generally liable for the debts of the estate (§ 1967 German Civil Code). The deadline for disclaiming an inheritance is six weeks, or six months if the deceased's last residence was abroad or the heir is residing abroad (§ 1944 German Civil Code). If the estate's insolvency only becomes apparent later, under strict conditions, the acceptance of the inheritance can be contested (§§ 1954, 1956 German Civil Code), or liability can be limited through estate administration or insolvency proceedings (§ 1975 German Civil Code). Conversely, a subsequently discovered cryptocurrency holding can make a seemingly insolvent inheritance more valuable – the applicable deadlines should be reviewed by a lawyer.
Those entitled to a compulsory share of the estate who are not heirs can demand information about the estate's assets, participation in the inventory process, valuation, and, under certain conditions, a notarized inventory (§ 2314 German Civil Code); the assets and their value at the time of death are decisive (§ 2311 German Civil Code). The absence of known traces – such as transfers to cryptocurrency exchanges, shareholdings, wallet addresses, domains, or foreign companies – justifies specific investigations and requests for information.
Gifts made during one's lifetime can be a Claim for supplementary compulsory portion Triggering (§ 2325 BGB): They are counted down by one-tenth per year and are disregarded after ten years; for spouses, the period does not begin before the dissolution of the marriage. Crypto transfers to relatives or third parties can be dated on-chain to the exact day – and the date determines the reduction.
Inheritance tax generally arises upon death (§ 9 para. 1 no. 1 ErbStG), which is also decisive for the valuation (§ 11 ErbStG); valuation is carried out according to § 12 ErbStG in conjunction with the Valuation Act, regularly at fair market value (§ 9 BewG). For crypto assets, the holdings and value must be reconstructed separately; volatile, illiquid, blocked, or difficult-to-access positions raise special valuation issues.
Finanz Forensik does not replace legal or tax advice. Its forensic task consists of the technical and economic reconstruction as well as the verifiable documentation of asset traces and outstanding issues.
With bank assets, there is an account-holding institution that, after verification of the heirs' identity, provides information and allows them to make decisions. With self-custody crypto assets, such an institution is lacking. Whoever controls the key or seed phrase can technically make decisions – but is not automatically the sole legal owner. Therefore, three levels must be distinguished in the estate.
Exchanges and custody providers have a customer relationship; the blockchain often only shows deposits and withdrawals, not internal trades and balances. Heirs usually prove their identity with a certificate of inheritance, European Certificate of Succession, or a notarized will with a record of its opening – and should explicitly include a Bank statement as of the date of death and request the complete transaction history.
With hardware wallets, software wallets, or paper backups, the crucial information lies outside any institutional system. If the seed phrase is missing, a balance may be in fact unavailable despite clear on-chain visibility. Blockchain analysis documents existence and history – it cannot reconstruct a lost private key.
| situation | Forensic examination approach |
|---|---|
| „"There was once Bitcoin, but nobody knows where."“ | Check bank transfers, stock market emails, tax documents, wallet addresses, transaction IDs, hardware wallets and known withdrawals as entry points. |
| „"The wallet is empty."“ | Historical blockchain data shows when assets existed and where they were transferred. |
| „"The stock exchange was never used."“ | Bank payments, email notifications, and on-chain flows to known service provider infrastructures can provide conflicting evidence. |
| „"The seed phrase is lost."“ | On-chain checks determine whether inventory has moved after the alleged loss. Such movement proves access by someone, not automatically by the deceased. |
| „"The Token are worthless.“ | Market value and actual tradability on the valuation date should be examined separately. |
| „"The coins were given to me as a gift while I was still alive."“ | When were the assets transferred on-chain, and to whom? The date is crucial for compulsory portion supplementation (§ 2325 BGB) and equalization among co-heirs. |
| „"Nothing was moved after death."“ | Movements after the date of death indicate that someone had access. This then raises questions regarding the release of data, information, and potentially criminal law. |
What matters is not only whether the deceased was the last to trade, but whether cryptocurrencies were ever purchased, mined, received as compensation, staked, or transferred to private wallets. Early purchases can have a completely different economic value today.
Not just: "Did the deceased own crypto at the time?" but: "Did he or she ever buy, hold, transfer, or use cryptocurrencies in a..." Crypto exchange " worked?"“
Illustrative example: 10 BTC at €500 each represented an investment of €5,000. At a later price of €70,000 per BTC, they would be worth €700,000 – assuming they still exist and are accessible. This isn't a typical return, not a current price, but rather the potential effect of long-term price movements. Traces of older holdings are often thin – an old bank statement, an email from a renamed exchange, a USB stick, a handwritten list of words. Even a single reliable entry point can be enough to reconstruct historical transaction paths.
Email accounts, cloud storage, smartphones, password managers, domains, online shops, and platform accounts can contain clues to assets—but also highly sensitive data belonging to the deceased and third parties. Access authorization and secure Securing evidence These issues must therefore be clarified before implementing technical measures. Where structured access information is lacking, self-custody cryptography in particular can easily go undetected.
Every discovery is first documented: What was found, where, when, and by whom? Seed phrases and private keys do not belong in emails, chats, or cloud documents. In cases involving multiple heirs, no transfers should occur until authorization and procedures are clarified. Forensic preservation means preserving information and understanding the context—not moving assets as quickly as possible.
Heirs also assume user agreements with email, cloud, and platform providers; this is not precluded by telecommunications secrecy laws (§ 4 TDDDG). However, if there are multiple heirs, devices and accounts belong to the community of heirs – a single co-heir should not evaluate them unilaterally. Third-party data should be handled with care.
Asset analysis in inheritance cases is significantly broader than blockchain analysis. OSINT reconstructs the deceased's economic activities – always with a clear distinction between proven fact, reliable evidence, and mere assumption.
| Asset area | Possible OSINT and forensic approaches |
|---|---|
| Companies and investments | Commercial register, company register, annual financial statements, shareholder lists, managing director and authorized signatory remuneration, affiliated companies. |
| Property information | Companies with a real estate purpose, business addresses, foreclosure announcements, press and project reports; land register only in case of legitimate interest. |
| Foreign connections | Public foreign company registers, branches, investment networks, reputable media and register sources. |
| Digital business models | Domains, archived websites, online shops, platform profiles, legal notices and payment information, app or SaaS projects. |
| Receivables and loans | Balance sheets, company documents, court decisions, insolvency notices and information on private financing. |
| Crypto references | Exchange names, wallet addresses, blockchain names, hardware wallets, tax documents, payments to crypto service providers. |
| valuables | Publicly documented vehicles, boats, art or collections are only used as a starting point for investigations, not as proof of ownership. |
For entrepreneurs and self-employed individuals, a significant portion of the estate's value often lies outside of traditional bank accounts: company shares, shareholder loans, receivables, trademarks, domains, or rights to digital business models. Registry and accounting data can help to complete documentation or reveal discrepancies.
International structures are not automatically suspicious, but they do increase the research requirements: different register access methods, languages, legal forms, and beneficial ownership. A hit in a foreign register does not automatically prove that the asset belongs entirely to the German estate.
| Level | Goal | Typical work steps |
|---|---|---|
| 1 – Estate Screening | Identify known and potential asset areas | Clarify heirship and mandate; inventory documents, accounts, companies, real estate information, stock exchanges, wallets, domains and digital access. |
| 2 – OSINT and Registers | Structuring external asset trails | Check company registers, commercial registers, public foreign sources, domains, business models and economic relationships. |
| 3 – Blockchain Forensics | Reconstructing crypto holdings and pathways | Analyze known wallets/TXIDs; document historical holdings, redirects, swaps, bridges and service provider references. |
| 4 – Valuation and reconciliation on the cut-off date | To verify the plausibility of the estate's assets at the time of inheritance | Determine the assets on the date of death; document market values; compare findings with the estate inventory, tax documents and stock market information. |
| 5 – Forensic Documentation | Create a usable foundation | Separate facts, evidence, and hypotheses; secure sources; identify open questions and concrete next steps for obtaining information or conducting investigations. |
Not every clue leads to proof of assets. Good forensics also shows where the chain of evidence ends and what information is still missing for the next step.
The questions are deliberately pointed. They are not intended to create suspicion, but rather to reveal gaps in memory and potential investigative approaches. A "yes" answer does not prove any financial value – what matters is whether evidence can be legally secured and corroborated by independent data.
Do you know what you inherited – or only what you found?
The following example is entirely fictitious and serves solely to illustrate a possible logic of investigation.
| element | Example |
|---|---|
| Initial situation | The testator dies in 2026. Two children are co-heirs. Known bank balances and securities: €410,000. No cryptocurrencies are listed in the inventory of the estate. |
| First clues | A child remembers buying Bitcoin around 2016. Old bank statements show payments to a cryptocurrency exchange; a hardware wallet is also found. |
| OSINT findings | A shareholding in a limited liability company (GmbH) and a domain with a previous online business are identified. This shareholding is initially missing from the private asset overview. |
| Blockchain Entry | A historical withdrawal from the exchange leads to a known Bitcoin address. From there, several redirects can be traced to a later deposit address of another service provider. |
| Cut-off date examination | On the date of death, the remaining traceable on-chain holdings and their market values are documented. Estate documents and bank statements are requested for the centralized service provider. |
| Tax implications | The heirs must report the crypto assets to the tax office (§ 30 ErbStG) and check whether the deceased declared any previous capital gains. In the event of a later sale, the holding period from the purchase date around 2016 continues to apply. |
| Result | Forensic analysis does not automatically prove ownership of every associated address. However, it provides concrete wallets, transactions, service providers, business connections, and outstanding valuations that can be examined in estate inventories and legal proceedings. |
In an estate with multiple heirs, found crypto assets do not belong to the individual finder; estate assets must generally be disposed of jointly. Therefore, the technical analysis always includes clarifying the legal power of disposal.
Reputable asset disclosure defines its limits. OSINT and blockchain forensics document clues, connections, and transaction chains – they do not replace official disclosure rights, judicial evaluation of evidence, or tax assessment.
The strongest constellation is a clear division of labor: The Lawyer or specialist lawyer for inheritance law Responsible for inheritance rights, compulsory share, information claims, community of heirs and procedures; Tax advisor or specialist lawyer for tax law clarify the tax assessment; the Financial forensics The technical, economic, and digital reconstruction is undertaken. For substantial crypto assets, a secure custody and transfer strategy may also be necessary. Executors of wills (§ 2215 BGB: inventory of the estate) and administrators of estates (§ 1960 BGB) are obvious clients or recipients of forensic findings.
The most difficult asset to deal with in an estate is not necessarily the one that was hidden. It could be the person whose existence no one knew about – or whose access was lost with the testator.
Legal and data status: October 2026 · not legal or tax advice in individual cases.
David Lüdtke
Managing Director · OSINT Analyst & Crypto Forensic Expert · Finanz Forensik GmbH
Court-admissible crypto transaction analysis, OSINT-based asset investigation, and expert reports for defense attorneys, insolvency administrators, and companies. Certified Crystal Expert (CECF, CEEI, CEUI). Finanz Forensik Supports law firms, companies, investigative bodies and insolvency administrators — focus areas: Blockchain forensics, wallet analysis, court-admissible documentation, OSINT.
Contact: postfach@finanz-forensik.de · +49 6057 9189145 · finanz-forensik.de
We reconstruct crypto holdings, corporate affiliations and digital asset trails in the estate – transparently documented for heirs, lawyers, executors and tax advisors.
