For the latest session of our Digital Asset Recovery Around the World series, Fred Buret, Blockchain Investigations Manager at Recoveris, spoke with Daniel Coyle, a partner at Sequor Law. Coyle works in asset recovery, creditors’ rights, cross-border insolvency and judgment enforcement, and he walked through how US courts actually handle stolen cryptocurrency, from the first attempt to locate a defendant to the final order that hands assets back. The United States is arguably the most influential jurisdiction globally for crypto, which makes it one of the most active spaces for disputes, fraud investigations, insolvencies and enforcement actions.
Key takeaways for legal professionals, compliance teams and insolvency practitioners
A maturing regulatory and legal landscape
A few years ago, most US judges and jurors did not understand digital assets well. That has changed through continuing legal education and a steady rise in crypto-related cases. The Uniform Law Commission and the American Law Institute have partnered to draft Article 12 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs property rights for intangible digital assets such as cryptocurrency. As of early 2026, 33 states, including Florida where Sequor Law practices, have enacted their own versions. Courts outside major urban centers can still be less familiar with the space, but Coyle’s experience is that even less familiar judges are open to being educated and eager to learn.
The scam patterns feeding US cases
The fraud typologies in the US mirror what investigators see elsewhere: pig butchering and romance scams, giveaway scams, celebrity impersonation and a range of investment scams. Coyle described the investment scam mechanics in detail, where a victim is added to a group seeded with confederates who express staged enthusiasm, follow a daily “educational” program led by a fabricated authority figure, and are then steered to a fake investment portal that simply siphons funds. A second, compounding pattern is re-victimization, where the original scammer returns disguised as a recovery agent, takes an upfront fee, and defrauds the victim a second time after they have already been cleared out.
Service of process when the defendant is anonymous
Fraudsters in this space rarely operate in a way that allows traditional service. US case law has adapted, permitting alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and 4(f) depending on whether the defendant is believed to be in the US. Courts have approved service through the WhatsApp number used to run the scam, and service on the blockchain itself. In Bowen v. Lee, a 2023 decision from the Southern District of Florida, the court authorized service by NFT and website, reasoning that the defendants ran their scheme electronically and that those methods were likely to reach them. In Blum v. Defendant One, the court permitted alternative service through WhatsApp and an NFT transfer against an anonymous defendant known only as “Mia Tara,” with read receipts later confirming the documents had been received.
Freezing assets while the case runs
Once a defendant is served, the priority is holding the cryptocurrency in place. The federal system offers three prejudgment routes: a temporary restraining order effective for 14 days, a temporary injunction that lasts the duration of the case, and a prejudgment writ of garnishment, which requires a bond. The elements track those for enjoining any property transfer: likelihood of irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, no adequate remedy at law, a balance of harm favoring the applicant, and the public interest. These are typically sought ex parte so the target cannot move assets in response. The remedy depends heavily on the funds sitting with a legitimate exchange that holds KYC records and, increasingly, writes into its user agreements that it will honor court orders such as injunctions and garnishments. Coyle paired this with the forensic reality: even where an account holder nominally controls a wallet, the exchange usually retains enough control to freeze transfers. Alongside freezing, the subpoena power that comes with filing suit becomes a discovery tool, compelling exchanges to identify wallet owners and produce account-opening records that work hand in hand with blockchain tracing.
Recovering the assets, and where it breaks down
Post-judgment, the toolkit mirrors the prejudgment one: a permanent injunction functioning as a turnover order, garnishment without the bond requirement, and old-fashioned execution and levy where a cold wallet sits on a flash drive, with US Marshals empowered to enter and seize it. Proceeding supplementary lets a creditor pursue assets a fraudster has moved to a confederate, by proving a fraudulent transfer and obtaining judgment against the third party. Jurisdiction is where these remedies strain. In Currier v. PDL Recovery Group LLC, a Michigan court denied garnishment against Coinbase because the defendant was domiciled in New York, and under Michigan law the situs of intangible assets follows the owner’s domicile. For digital nomads and wallets controlled across borders, that logic creates real gaps, which is why Coyle stressed that US crypto recovery is the most international and cross-border work in the field and depends on a coordinated network of attorneys and digital forensic investigators.
Watch the full session
The full conversation covers the SEC and CFTC’s recent classification of crypto assets, the unusual civil-criminal cooperation in the Goliath Ventures case, and how recovered funds flow to victims through the bankruptcy waterfall. It reflects the same investigation-to-recovery work Recoveris coordinates across jurisdictions every day.
Watch the full webinar on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMgJTvfEQ20
