Tax seizure of crypto-assets: what the Law of 25 June 2026 changes

Since 26 June 2026, a notice sent by the public accounting officer to an exchange platform is enough to freeze a crypto-asset wallet, up to the amount of tax claimed, and then have it sold. No judge, no judicial officer: the administrative attachment order to third-party holders (SATD), designed for sums of money, now reaches tokens held by a service provider. The mechanism is more singular than the commentary announcing it suggested, and its implementing decrees are still awaited.

What the Law of 25 June 2026 changed

The administrative attachment order to third-party holders (SATD) is the ordinary weapon of enforced tax recovery. Article L. 262 of the French Tax Procedure Code allows the public accounting officer to serve it on anyone who holds or owes sums to the person liable, without a court decision, on the basis of the notice of recovery or the tax roll (Article L. 252 A) and after a formal notice to pay (Article L. 257-0 A). On receipt, it triggers the immediate attribution of the sums to the Treasury (Article L. 211-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).

The text targeted sums of money, and, on one earlier occasion, surrenderable life-insurance contracts, whose attachment triggers forced surrender (L. 262, 2). A token held by a platform is neither: the service provider is not a debtor in euros. The tax authorities therefore had to proceed under the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (Article L. 258 A), in particular the seizure of intangible rights under Article L. 231-1, involving a judicial officer and a sale.

Article 90 of Law no. 2026-534 of 25 June 2026 on combating social-security and tax fraud inserts into Article L. 262 a paragraph 2 bis devoted to crypto-assets and a paragraph 6 capping the service provider’s fees, in force since 26 June 2026, the day of publication. From 1 July 2026, the vocabulary shifted to that of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, to which Article L. 54-10-1 of the French Monetary and Financial Code now refers: the French-law PSAN status has disappeared, and only a crypto-asset service provider (CASP) authorised under Article 59 of the Regulation may operate (Article L. 54-10-4) — and it is that provider whom the attachment order designates. The Constitutional Council, which reviewed the Law, did not examine this article (Decision no. 2026-904 DC of 18 June 2026).

A wallet frozen, then sold

On a bank account, the third party pays over the funds within thirty days (L. 262, 3) and the matter is closed. On a crypto-asset wallet, the Law organises a conversion in three stages. Notification, first: the attachment strikes “indiscriminately the entire wallet” held on that day, without distinguishing stablecoins from volatile tokens, up to the amount of the debt; the service provider must immediately declare the extent of its obligations (L. 262, 3 bis), on pain of being ordered to pay the sums due if its declaration is false. Sale by the person liable, next, within a time limit the decree must set: this is the useful window, the moment when they choose what to dispose of. Forced sale, last: once that time limit has passed, the service provider sells, or has an authorised provider sell, the assets, and remits the proceeds within a second, regulatory time limit.

The decisive feature is retroactivity. Attribution of the proceeds to the Treasury is deemed to occur on the day of notification, whereas the proceeds do not exist until the day of the sale. Between the two, the price fluctuates, and the text says nothing about the gap: since the attachment is capped at the amount owed, the service provider does not sell beyond that amount, but nothing indicates that insufficient proceeds would release the person liable from the balance. The volatility falls on them alone. The service provider’s fees are capped in the same way as bank attachment fees: 10% of the amount owed, subject to a regulatory ceiling (L. 262, 5 and 6).

Three references to a decree, no decree. The time limit left to the person liable to sell, the time limit for the service provider to remit the proceeds, and the cap on fees have not been set: as of 8 September 2026, the only decree issued on the administrative attachment order to third-party holders, Decree no. 2026-683 of 27 July 2026, concerns the attachment of wages. The attachment can be notified and the wallet frozen; the service provider’s obligation to sell, however, has no starting point. The validity of a crypto attachment carried out before the decrees are issued is a question the enforcement judge will have to decide.

The contrast with the criminal-law regime is stark. Article 706-154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seizes crypto-assets deposited with a service provider under the general law of special seizures, under the supervision of a judge within ten days, with a view to confiscation (see our analysis of crypto-asset seizure and the law of seizures and confiscation). The tax legislature created its own regime, with no judge before the sale, borrowing from the criminal-law provision only its formula “indiscriminately the entire [wallet]”. Where the two measures target the same wallet, Article 706-145 causes a criminal seizure to suspend any civil enforcement procedure; whether the administrative attachment is such a procedure remains to be decided by the courts.

The taxpayer facing the seizure notice

The notice served on the person liable must state, on pain of nullity, the time limits and rights of appeal (L. 262, 1). Upstream, an enforceable title and a formal notice to pay are required, preceded by a reminder letter for a first default, subject to exceptions notably for taxes arising from a reassessment and debts exceeding €15,000 (Articles L. 257-0 A and L. 257-0 B).

A challenge falls under the recovery-litigation regime of Article L. 281: an application to the head of the department to which the accounting officer reports, within two months of notification, on pain of inadmissibility (Article R. 281-3-1); a response within two months; then two months to apply to the enforcement judge if the form of the measure is disputed, or to the tax judge if the obligation to pay, the amount, or the enforceability of the debt is disputed (Article R. 281-4). The judge examines only the grounds submitted to the tax authorities (Article R.* 281-5). The merits of the tax itself cannot be argued in these proceedings.

It can be argued through the stay of payment under Article L. 277, a point the commentary on the Law overlooked: a claim expressly requesting it, quantifying the expected relief, suspends the enforceability of the debt until a final decision, subject to guarantees above a regulatory threshold. An attachment carried out on a debt whose enforceability is suspended is challenged before the tax judge. What remains is the taxation of the sale itself: the disposal of crypto-assets for euros is the taxable event triggering the capital gain under Article 150 VH bis of the French General Tax Code, and nothing exempts a forced disposal. The tax debt generates a second one; choosing which tokens to dispose of is also a choice of tax base.

The director, the company and the notified provider

The attachment order “also applies to managers, directors, executives or liquidators of companies for sums owed by those companies” (L. 262, 1). A director is liable for the company’s tax debt only where their joint liability has been established: by the president of the judicial court, in the event of fraudulent conduct or serious and repeated non-compliance with tax obligations that has rendered recovery impossible (Article L. 267 of the French Tax Procedure Code), or by the criminal court, a final conviction for tax fraud making the director jointly liable for the tax evaded and the penalties (Article 1745 of the French General Tax Code). From that point, the director’s personal wallet held on a platform answers for the company’s debt; and Article L. 267 authorises protective measures while remedies are pending.

A company holding crypto-assets as treasury assets falls under the same regime for its own debts, the attachment freezing the entire wallet for the duration of the procedure. The service provider, as third-party holder, declares, freezes, sells and remits. The Law imposes no requirement that the provider be established in France; whether the notice can be enforced against a provider authorised in another Member State or established outside the Union will be governed by the ordinary rules of cross-border enforcement.

The Law’s other crypto-asset measures

Article 91 of the same Law creates an Article 150 VH ter of the French General Tax Code, which subjects unique, non-fungible crypto-assets to the tax regime of the property they represent, for disposals carried out since 1 January 2026 — that is, even before the Law was published. Article 1649 bis C requires declaration of wallets held with organisations established abroad and of unique, non-fungible crypto-assets held abroad: a fine of €750 per wallet, rising to €1,500 above a value of €50,000 (Article 1736, X), an 80% increase in the reassessed duties (Article 1729-0 A) and, failing proof of the origin of the assets within the time limits of Article L. 23 C of the French Tax Procedure Code, a presumption of acquisition by way of gift taxed at 60% on the highest value recorded over the preceding ten years (Articles 755 and 777). The reassessment period is ten years for income tax (Article L. 169) and, since 26 June 2026, for registration duties and the real-estate wealth tax (Article L. 181-0 A). A wallet held on a foreign platform therefore combines disclosure risk with exposure to attachment; one whose holder alone keeps the keys escapes the administrative attachment, for want of a third-party holder, but escapes neither the disclosure obligation nor criminal seizure.

The Law of 25 June 2026 did not authorise the seizure of crypto-assets: it was already possible, through heavier procedures. It gave the public accounting officer a simplified instrument, derogatory and retroactive in its effects, whose execution depends on decrees that have not been published. For the taxpayer, the question is not whether the tax authorities can seize, but in what order to act: a stay of payment if the tax is disputed, a challenge to the notice within two months, and choosing which tokens to dispose of. For the director, the question is one of joint liability. In both cases, the wallet is frozen as soon as notification is made; the time for deciding is the time that precedes it.

Frequently asked questions

Can the tax authorities seize crypto-assets without a court decision?

Yes, since 26 June 2026, where they are held by a crypto-asset service provider. The administrative attachment order to third-party holders under Article L. 262 of the French Tax Procedure Code is put into effect by the public accounting officer on the basis of the notice of recovery or the tax roll, after a formal notice to pay. Judicial review then takes place, if a challenge is brought.

Can a wallet whose holder alone keeps the private keys be seized this way?

No. The administrative attachment order to third-party holders requires a third party holding assets on behalf of the person liable. These crypto-assets remain subject to the disclosure obligation under Article 1649 bis C of the French General Tax Code where held abroad, and remain seizable through the criminal-law route.

What is the time limit for challenging the attachment?

Two months from notification, on pain of inadmissibility (Article R.* 281-3-1 of the French Tax Procedure Code), by an application to the tax authorities; then two months, after their response or silence, to apply to the enforcement judge or the tax judge depending on the ground relied on. Grounds not submitted to the tax authorities are not admissible before the judge.

Does a forced sale trigger a taxable capital gain?

Article 150 VH bis of the French General Tax Code taxes capital gains on the disposal of crypto-assets for consideration, and no provision exempts a disposal carried out in execution of an attachment, whether made by the person liable or by the service provider.

Have the implementing decrees been published?

No, as of 8 September 2026. The time limit left to the person liable to sell, the time limit for the service provider to remit the proceeds, and the cap on fees all refer to decrees that have not been published in the Journal officiel. The provision is in force; its full execution depends on them.