{"id":2509,"date":"2026-06-24T10:02:07","date_gmt":"2026-06-24T08:02:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/finanz-forensik.de\/?page_id=2509"},"modified":"2026-06-24T12:19:11","modified_gmt":"2026-06-24T10:19:11","slug":"property-rights","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/finanz-forensik.de\/en\/whitepaper\/eigentumsrechte\/","title":{"rendered":"Property rights"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
Research Report No. 03 \u00b7 Law \u00b7 Digital Assets<\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Ownership rights to stolen crypto assets under German law<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Dogmatics, claim architecture and enforcement \u2014 from blocking to enrichment, tort and subrogation to insolvency, international jurisdiction and comparative law.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

7 chapters<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Legal comparison DE\/UK\/US<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Checklist<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/polyline><\/line><\/svg>\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhitepaper as PDF<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRead online<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Gold\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Whitepaper<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
<\/svg><\/div>
Protection exists today<\/div>

Legal protection for stolen crypto assets already exists \u2014 only its dogmatic foundation is still maturing.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
<\/svg><\/div>
Thinking in parallel<\/div>

Blocking, enrichment, offense, surrogate, criminal security, forum \u2014 not a single property claim.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
<\/svg><\/div>
Speed saves recovery<\/div>

After swap, bridge and CEX off-ramp, only replacement value remains \u2014 the specific recovery diminishes.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Executive Summary<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Not "who owns the coin" \u2014 but which bundle of claims survives the taking.<\/b>\u00a0A complete legal "ownership" of native crypto assets is not explicitly defined in German law. However, the injured party is not without protection\u2014the crucial factor is to think early and in parallel: blocking, identity, unjust enrichment, tort, substitute, criminal prosecution, and forums.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The central dogmatic question in German law is not simply who "owns" the coin, but whether native cryptocurrencies are even subject to an absolute right akin to ownership. The wording of the German Civil Code (BGB) is cumbersome in this regard: "things" refers only to physical objects, and the ownership claims of \u00a7\u00a7 985 ff. BGB are tailored to things. At the same time, European crypto law explicitly addresses the ownership rights of customers: MiCA requires service providers to safeguard customer rights, maintain inventory registers, and legally segregate custody holdings.<\/p>

For native coins, the sober core message is this: the continued existence of "ownership" in the strict sense of property law is not clear. However, the injured party's position survives the theft as a bundle of claims based on unjust enrichment, tort, contract, and potentially similar property rights; some argue for an "other right" within the meaning of Section 823 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), others for an absolute right of property, and still others for an analogy to property law.<\/p>

In practice, the earlier access is gained, the more likely restitution in kind is possible. As long as the asset is in the same wallet, on the same exchange, or in an identifiable custody arrangement, blocking, release, or retransfer are achievable. After on-chain swaps, CEX deposits, omnibus pooling, or cross-chain bridges, the focus shifts to claims for proceeds and compensation for value. German law does not have an equity-based tracing doctrine like the one in England\u2014but Section 818 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) covers substitutes, and Sections 47 and 48 of the German Insolvency Code (InsO) demonstrate the same logic of substitution.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\u201e"Those who want to prosecute stolen cryptocurrencies should not rely on a single property claim \u2014 but should think in parallel about blocking, enrichment, crime, surrogate, criminal protection and forum."\u201c<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Key finding for practical application<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

01<\/span> Dogmatic starting point<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Three categories of cases must be distinguished: native self-custodied crypto assets on a public blockchain, crypto assets held in custody by a central service provider, and tokenized rights with a contractual basis. This classification determines the claim structure, insolvency situation, and whether the injured party is pursuing a specific asset or merely a claim against an intermediary.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Blue\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Control instead of physicality.<\/b> Whoever holds the private key controls the value \u2014 but Section 90 of the German Civil Code (BGB) links "ownership" to physical objects. This is precisely where the dogmatic breaking point lies.<\/p>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The breaking point lies in Section 90 of the German Civil Code (BGB): "Things" refers only to physical objects. The direct application of property law to native crypto assets is therefore not self-evident. MiCA reinforces this finding: Article 70 requires provisions to safeguard customers' ownership rights, and Article 75 mandates a customer register, separation of customer and proprietary holdings, and legal segregation. This significantly supports interpretations similar to ownership.<\/p>

A warning signal comes from tax law: In 2025, the Nuremberg Tax Court denied the attribution of "economic ownership" to a blockchain entry under Section 39 of the German Fiscal Code (AO) \u2013 not a landmark civil law decision, but an indication that German courts are cautious about making hasty analogies of ownership. From a functional perspective, the injured party's exclusive position of ownership can persist \u2013 only as a contested, and sometimes differently qualified, absolute or quasi-absolute property right.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

02<\/span> Claim architecture and enforcement<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The vicarious solution via \u00a7 985 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is problematic for native crypto assets according to its wording, because it presupposes ownership of a thing; the same applies to \u00a7\u00a7 861, 1004 BGB. The direct anchors are rather \u00a7\u00a7 812, 818, 816, 823 BGB<\/b>. German law does not recognize a US-style conversion lawsuit \u2014 its functional equivalents lie in the law of unjust enrichment and tort law.<\/p>

Under the law of unjust enrichment \u00a7 812 BGB<\/b> Often the first safe haven; Section 818 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) extends the obligation to benefits and substitutes. If the stolen coin is sold or swapped, the proceeds or replacement asset remain subject to unjust enrichment law\u2014the most important German link to prosecution under the Proceeds Act. Under tort law, \u00a7 823 BGB<\/b> The second pillar: Anyone who spies on or unlawfully transfers keys infringes at least on the property of others; even if absolute legal nature is denied, claims for damages against perpetrators and knowing intermediaries remain viable.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Urgent legal protection \u2014 time is more important than legal doctrine<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Sections 935, 940 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) (preliminary injunction) \u00b7 Section 937 para. 2 ZPO (decision without oral hearing) \u00b7 Section 294 ZPO (establishment of prima facie evidence, any means of proof). Central to wallet freezing, orders to surrender to custodians, and securing evidence \u2014 on-chain values shift in minutes.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The criminal law route runs parallel: Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (seizure), Section 111b of the Code of Criminal Procedure (seizure to secure confiscation), Section 73 of the Criminal Code (confiscation of proceeds). Central to the victim's perspective is... Section 73e of the German Criminal Code<\/b>Confiscation is precluded to the extent that the injured party's claim for restitution or compensation has expired\u2014mere statute of limitations is irrelevant in this respect. Criminal proceedings do not replace the civil action for surrender, but are its most important enforcement and informational vehicle.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

03<\/span> Exchange, bridges, and acquisition in good faith<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The legal stress point in every case is the mutation<\/b> Regarding the asset: A DEX swap exchanges the asset, a central exchange replaces wallet access with a book entry, a bridge locks the original asset and mints a wrapped asset. The protected object changes\u2014and with it, the strongest legal bases for claims.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"A\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

From asset to surrogate.<\/b> With every swap, every bridge, and every CEX deposit, the pursuit shifts from specific recovery<\/em> to value recovery<\/em> \u2014 Proceeds and compensation for value.<\/p>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

As a general rule: If the assets remain identical, asset-specific claims are strongest; in the case of an exchange or bridge migration, the focus shifts to surrogates, proceeds, and compensation for value. Section 818 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) supports the concept of surrogacy, while Section 48 of the German Insolvency Code (InsO) assigns the identifiable consideration to the entitled party\u2014not a fully developed tracing doctrine, but the most robust German basis for avoiding legal recourse after a swap.<\/p>

Acquisition in good faith under \u00a7 932 of the German Civil Code (BGB) requires the sale of an object; \u00a7 935 BGB precludes this in the case of lost or stolen property. For native crypto assets, there is currently no clearly codified "bona fide purchaser" protection\u2014by analogy to property law, \u00a7 935 BGB would even constitute a strong argument for victimization. England treats crypto as property<\/em> with tracing, but considers bona fide purchaser defenses a serious risk; the US works with control-based rules (UCC Article 12) that can give downstream purchasers more protection.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

04<\/span> Statute of limitations and insolvency<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

For claims based on unjust enrichment and tort, the standard limitation period of three years applies (\u00a7 195 BGB), beginning at the end of the year in which knowledge was gained (\u00a7 199 para. 1 BGB). In cases involving cryptocurrencies, the Identification of the debtor<\/b> often the bottleneck \u2014 the question of knowledge thus becomes as important as the material basis for the claim.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Close-up\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Segregation decides.<\/b> Section 47 of the Insolvency Code grants segregation \u2014 strongly in the case of cleanly segregated custody, weakly in the case of a vague claim to \u201eany quantity\u201c of coins in the estate.<\/p>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Under insolvency law, the qualification of the legal position is decisive. Section 47 of the German Insolvency Code (InsO) grants segregation in the case of a right that excludes the insolvency estate; Section 81 InsO renders dispositions made after the commencement of insolvency proceedings ineffective. Someone with only an imprecise claim is significantly weaker than a customer of a system with a clear register of positions and legal segregation. Here, MiCA has a strong impact (Articles 70, 75). The US counterpart: In the Celsius<\/b>In the bankruptcy proceedings, the court based its decision regarding earn accounts on the terms of use \u2014 Celsius held \u201eall rights and title, including ownership rights\u201c. The contract text and custody structure are often more important for bankruptcy distribution than the abstract question of ownership.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

05<\/span> International Law, Conflict of Laws and Comparative Law<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Nationally, Sections 17, 32 and, where applicable, 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide the starting point; in EU cases, the following regularly supersedes it: Brussels Ia Regulation<\/b> National law. Conflict of laws applies to non-contractual claims. Rome II<\/b> The decisive factor (lex loci damni) \u2014 however, the place of loss is notoriously difficult to determine in cases of cryptocurrency theft. The Travel Rule Regulation 2023\/1113 improves the situation for transfers via regulated service providers; pure peer-to-peer chains remain more difficult to regulate \u2014 CEX\/CASP connections are invaluable in legal practice.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Stylized\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Cross-border by default.<\/b> Exchange seats, off-ramps and bridges distribute jurisdiction, connection and enforcement across multiple states \u2014 forum strategy is part of claim enforcement.<\/p>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

England<\/b> is the most useful order of comparison: Since AA v Persons Unknown<\/em> Crypto is considered property<\/em>; Courts are combining freezing orders, disclosure relief, actions against persons unknown, and tracing-based proprietary claims, strengthened by the Property (Digital Assets etc.) Act 2025. However Zi Wang v Darby<\/em> This shows that not every crypto transaction is a trust \u2014 the contract architecture remains crucial. USA<\/b> They do not offer a uniform standard, but rather a patchwork of State Law, Bankruptcy and UCC; successful conversion\/constructive trust lawsuits against unknown perpetrators exist alongside tough insolvency and UCC-related defense potentials.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Comparative law \u2014 aids and presentation structure<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Order<\/th>Character & Primary Aids<\/th>Urgent legal protection & information<\/th>Downstream acquirer protection<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Germany<\/td>Native crypto assets are dogmatically controversial; primarily \u00a7\u00a7 812, 818, 823 of the German Civil Code (BGB), contract \u2014 with a favorable legal interpretation, supplementary arguments regarding ownership\/injunction apply.<\/td>Preliminary injunction (\u00a7\u00a7 935\/940 of the German Code of Civil Procedure); criminal procedural safeguarding; information about Exchange & investigation file<\/td>No clearly codified good-faith acquisition for native assets; by analogy, \u00a7 935 of the German Civil Code (BGB) would be a strong argument for victimhood.<\/td><\/tr>
England & Wales<\/td>Crypto as property<\/em> recognized; proprietary claims, constructive trust and tracing firmly established<\/td>Highly developed practice against Persons Unknown, freezing & disclosure orders<\/td>Bona fide purchasing remains relevant, but is mitigated by early freezing.<\/td><\/tr>
USA<\/td>Inconsistent; State law, UCC Art. 12, bankruptcy law, and contract law overlap; conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust<\/td>TROs\/Freezes possible; Delivery and Discovery innovation; Practice diverges<\/td>In adopting states, control-based rules offer stronger protection for acquirers; terms of use shape insolvency proceedings.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

06<\/span> Recommendations and checklist<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

For Claimant<\/b> The most important recommendation is: early parallelization. Don't wait for the public prosecutor's office or the main proceedings\u2014within hours, secure wallet data, cluster transaction paths, notify exchanges, file freeze requests, provide criminal complaints with specific target addresses, and prepare urgent applications. Those who only get involved after swaps, bridges, and CEX off-ramps often don't lose their legal position, but they do miss the best recovery opportunity.<\/p>

For Stock exchanges and custodians<\/b> The red line is MiCA-compliant segregation: a robust customer register, documented key control, verifiable separation of proprietary and customer assets, incident response, and clear contractual allocation of custody rights. This determines whether a customer can be segregated in insolvency proceedings and whether a freeze order is operationally feasible.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Checklist in case of suspected cryptocurrency theft<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Asset type<\/td>Determine Native Coin, Custody Position, Stablecoin, Tokenized Right, Wrapped Asset or NFT.<\/td><\/tr>
Custodial model<\/td>Clarify whether to use self-custody, a central exchange, a third-party custodian, a bridge custodian, a multi-signature or a smart contract pool.<\/td><\/tr>
Hash chain<\/td>Document the origin wallet, transaction hashes, destination addresses, swaps, bridges, and CEX deposits.<\/td><\/tr>
Get informed immediately<\/td>Exchanges, custodians, compliance agencies and law enforcement agencies with precise wallet\/asset details.<\/td><\/tr>
Claim bundle<\/td>Examine the contract, \u00a7\u00a7 812, 818, 823 BGB, possibly \u00a7 816 BGB and property-related defense approaches.<\/td><\/tr>
Expedited proceedings<\/td>\u00a7\u00a7 935, 940, 937 II, 294 ZPO; in case of asset outflow, consider attachment or criminal procedural securing.<\/td><\/tr>
Forum & Networking<\/td>Analyze the seat\/jurisdiction, Brussels Ia, Rome II, off-ramp and enforcement state separately.<\/td><\/tr>
insolvency risk<\/td>Read the Terms of Use, Wallet Structure, MiCA Segregation, Exclusion Requirements, and Title Transfer.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

07<\/span> Conclusion: Protection is in place \u2014 the anchoring is still maturing.<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The most reliable statement is not "ownership yes or no," but rather: Legal protection for stolen crypto assets already exists today\u2014however, its dogmatic foundation and asset-specific scope are not yet fully consolidated in German law. It remains open whether native crypto assets will be explicitly recognized as absolute property rights or partially analogous to property law, and how German substitution logic relates to a fully formulated tracing doctrine.<\/p>

For legal advice, a change in methodology is crucial: away from a single property claim and towards a coordinated package of civil preliminary injunctions, criminal proceedings to secure assets, prosecution of surrogate debtors, and an international forum strategy. Those who pursue this early, with documentation, and in parallel keep the recovery opportunity open\u2014especially where values change hands in minutes via swaps, bridges, and off-ramps.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
Sources & Legal Basis<\/div>
Laws (DE)<\/b>Sections 90, 195, 199, 812, 816, 818, 823, 932, 935, 985, 1004 of the German Civil Code (BGB) \u00b7 Sections 17, 23, 32, 294, 935, 937, 940 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) \u00b7 Sections 73, 73e of the German Criminal Code (StGB) \u00b7 Sections 94, 111b of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) \u00b7 Sections 47, 48, 81 of the German Insolvency Code (InsO) \u00b7 Section 39 of the German Fiscal Code (AO)<\/div>
EU \/ Regulation<\/b>MiCA Articles 70 & 75 \u00b7 Travel Rule Regulation 2023\/1113 \u00b7 Brussels Ia Regulation \u00b7 Rome II Regulation \u00b7 BaFin Information Sheet on Crypto Asset Services<\/div>
Case law & literature<\/b>FG Nuremberg (2025) \u00b7 AA v Persons Unknown \u00b7 Zi Wang v Darby \u00b7 Celsius (US Bankruptcy) \u00b7 Yogaratnam v Doe \u00b7 Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 \u00b7 UCC Art. 12 \u00b7 Omlor\/Skauradszun, opinion<\/div><\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Professional\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

David L\u00fcdtke<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Managing Director \u00b7 OSINT Analyst & Crypto Forensic Expert \u00b7 Financial Forensics GmbH<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

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). Financial Forensics<\/b> Supports law firms, companies, investigative bodies and insolvency administrators \u2014 focus areas: Blockchain forensics, wallet analysis, court-admissible documentation, OSINT.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Contact:<\/b>\u00a0postfach@finanz-forensik.de<\/a> +49 6057 772 994 86<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Crypto assets gone? Every day counts.<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

We secure evidence, create legally sound crypto forensics reports and support law firms in asset recovery \u2014 before deadlines expire.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRequest an initial consultation<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/polyline><\/line><\/svg>\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhitepaper as PDF<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Research Report Nr. 03 \u00b7 Recht \u00b7 Digital Assets Eigentumsrechte an gestohlenen Kryptowerten nach deutschem Recht Dogmatik, Anspruchsarchitektur und Durchsetzung \u2014 von der Sperrung \u00fcber Bereicherung, Delikt und Surrogation bis zu Insolvenz, internationaler Zust\u00e4ndigkeit und Rechtsvergleich. 7 Kapitel Rechtsvergleich DE\/UK\/US Checkliste Whitepaper als PDF Online lesen Whitepaper Schutz besteht heute Der Rechtsschutz gestohlener Kryptowerte existiert […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2317,"parent":2313,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"elementor_header_footer","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2509","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t