Seizure of NFTs: what is actually seized, and how to challenge it

The token is still visible in the wallet, the image displays, the collection too. But since the notice served yesterday, it no longer moves: a court order has placed it in the hands of the justice system. Sometimes in proceedings that do not even concern you, because the token was bought from someone who is being prosecuted. What the judge has seized is an entry on a blockchain; the work it represents is hosted elsewhere, on a server nobody has touched. Understanding that gap is already knowing where to defend yourself, and within what time.

A seizure of NFTs is handled like any criminal seizure: the time limit for appeal is short, the appeal stays nothing and the file disclosed is partial. What sets it apart is the nature of the token. French seizure law has been rewritten for cryptocurrencies, which can be moved in minutes. The non-fungible token, for its part, has been set aside by European law, and the strongest arguments arise from that gap.

What follows sets out, in the order in which they arise, the decisions to be taken: identifying the measure, challenging the seizure route, distinguishing the token from the work, obtaining release or restitution, and preparing the question of the private key.

The ten days after service

The first question is not whether the seizure is justified, but what it is. A freeze decided by the platform, an objection by Tracfin, an investigators’ requisition and a criminal seizure produce the same effect on screen: the token no longer moves. None of them opens the same remedies. The decision served, and the date it was served, are therefore the two documents to gather before any other step.

If it is a criminal seizure, the appeal is lodged by declaration at the court registry within ten days of service, before the president of the investigating chamber or the investigating chamber itself. It does not stay enforcement: the token remains frozen while the appeal is examined. The appellant has access only to the documents relating to the seizure being challenged, and all of them must be requested from the moment of the declaration: the order, the prosecutor’s application, the requisitions sent to the platform, the tracing report and the name of its author.

This requirement is not a formality. The Court of Cassation quashed a ruling concerning digital assets because the appellant had not had access to the prosecutor’s application or to the records of the requisitions sent to the platform¹. A ground of this kind is raised at the first hearing and put on record: it is won or lost on the wording of the ruling.

An NFT is not a cryptocurrency, and the difference matters

The seizure of crypto-assets most often follows a fast route: a judicial police officer, “authorised by any means” by the prosecutor or the investigating judge, seizes the assets held on the platform himself, and the judge rules only afterwards, within ten days, on whether to maintain them (Article 706-154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The provision itself is sound, the Court of Cassation having held it compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights². What is open to argument is its application to a non-fungible token.

Yet Article 706-154 covers only “crypto-assets referred to in Article L. 54-10-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code”. Since 1 July 2026, that provision refers to the crypto-assets subject to Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, known as MiCA. And that Regulation “does not apply to crypto-assets that are unique and not fungible with other crypto-assets” (Article 2(3)), its recital 10 expressly naming “digital art and collectibles”.

This gives rise to an argument the courts have not yet settled, and which is presented as such: a genuinely unique token falls outside the fast route and comes under the ordinary regime for intangible property in Article 706-153, which requires a reasoned decision by a judge before the seizure, not a review after the event.

The argument has its limit, which must be known before it is pleaded. Recital 11 of the Regulation treats issuance in a large series or collection as an indicator of fungibility, refuses to see a mere unique identifier as proof of uniqueness, and excludes fractions of a token. A token from a collection of ten thousand interchangeable items may therefore be treated as an ordinary crypto-asset. The nature of the seized token is established document by document: the smart contract, the size of the series, the existence of a genuinely unique underlying asset.

What is seized: the token, not the work

A non-fungible token is a digital certificate recorded on a blockchain, whose metadata identify the issuer and the object represented. It does not contain the work: it contains a link to it. An NFT “does not create a new asset”, and when it is sold, “what is transferred is the right over the asset lawfully acquired”³.

Two practical consequences follow. First, challenging the seizure on the basis of copyright in the image misses the point: the dispute concerns the intangible property seized. Second, if the file is hosted on a centralised server, “if the link disappears, access to the content may be lost, even though the NFT still exists on the blockchain”⁴. Having the file’s address, its hash and its accessibility recorded at the time of seizure protects the value of what will, one day, be returned or sold.

A rule of conduct follows: never move the token after service, even to an address you control. Transferring seized property worsens the situation and preserves nothing.

Obtaining release or restitution

The seizure only secures a possible confiscation. It is justified only if the token is the instrument, object or proceeds of the offence, or if a confiscation by equivalent value is incurred. Two routes allow this to be tested, and they do not go before the same judge.

The appeal against the seizure concerns its lawfulness and its extent. Its surest ground lies in the ceiling on seizure by equivalent value: it may not exceed the value of the property liable to confiscation, the proceeds actually received must be assessed, and proportionality is reviewed as at the date on which the judge rules⁵. For a token whose value compares to no market, that is where the case is decided.

The request for restitution concerns the property itself and may be made at any time. During the investigation, it is addressed to the public prosecutor, whose refusal may be referred within one month to the first president of the court of appeal; during a judicial investigation, to the investigating judge, whose order may be referred within ten days. Either may also order restitution of their own motion. But if nothing has been requested or decided within six months of a decision to take no further action or of the final decision, the property not returned becomes the property of the State. A decision to drop the case therefore returns nothing by itself: it starts that time limit running.

A third party whose token has been seized in someone else’s proceedings has this second route on their own account. An owner acting in good faith who seeks restitution does not have to show that the property was at his free disposal⁶, and must have been given the opportunity to make observations before any confiscation.

For an illiquid asset, sale before judgment is a risk in its own right. The handover to the agency managing seized assets with a view to their sale may be challenged within five days of service, and storage costs alone are not enough to justify it⁷.

Private key and recovery phrase: the unsettled question

A token held in a self-custodied wallet cannot be seized without the private key or the recovery phrase. Investigators will ask for them, and will point out that refusing to hand over a secret decryption convention is punishable by three years’ imprisonment (Article 434-15-2 of the Criminal Code).

Yet the courts have settled this question only for a phone unlock code, which constitutes such a convention if the device is equipped with a means of cryptology, a point the judge must investigate⁸. No published decision has yet extended it to a private key or a recovery phrase. The argument exists: these elements decrypt no data, they make it possible to dispose of assets. The answer is prepared before the interview, with the same care as a refusal to disclose a phone unlock code.

What to gather before a first meeting

• the seizure decision and the exact date it was served;
• the seizure report, and the address to which the token was transferred, if it was;
• the wallet address, the token identifier and the collection’s smart contract;
• proof of acquisition and of the origin of the funds used to buy it;
• the address at which the file is hosted and, if possible, a dated capture of its display.

Frequently asked questions

Can an NFT be seized like a cryptocurrency account?

That is arguable, and it is a ground of defence. The fast route of Article 706-154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure covers only crypto-assets subject to the MiCA Regulation, which excludes unique and non-fungible tokens. The Court of Cassation has not yet ruled on the point. A token from a large series may, however, be treated as fungible.

How long do I have to challenge the seizure?

Ten days from service, by declaration at the court registry, before the president of the investigating chamber or the chamber itself. The appeal does not stay the seizure: the token remains frozen while it is examined. A request for restitution, by contrast, is not confined to that time limit.

Does seizing the token also seize the work?

No. The token contains a link to a file, usually hosted off the blockchain, and does not by itself transfer the copyright. What is seized is intangible movable property.

The token belongs to my company, not to the person prosecuted: what can I do?

Seek restitution as an owner acting in good faith. The Court of Cassation does not require proof that the person prosecuted did not have it at their free disposal, and the owner must be heard before any confiscation.

Do I have to give my recovery phrase to investigators?

The question is unsettled for a recovery phrase or a private key, unlike a phone unlock code. A refusal may be prosecuted under Article 434-15-2 of the Criminal Code, but it is open to argument. The answer is prepared before any interview.