Civil Asset Forfeiture: Can Florida Police Seize My Crypto?

June 17, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Civil Asset Forfeiture, Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, civil asset forfeiture in response to allegations of criminal activity can be very serious. In response to developing probable cause that assets were used in the commission or furtherance of a criminal offense, law enforcement may sometimes seize those assets pursuant to the Florida Contraband and Forfeiture Act (FCFA).

Assets that are typically seized by law enforcement as part of civil asset forfeiture proceedings tend to include boats, vehicles, jewelry, cash, or other tangible items. But what happens if a law enforcement agency develops probable cause that cryptocurrency (or a cryptocurrency wallet) was used in the commission of a criminal offense? 

This article will provide an overview of civil asset forfeiture under the FCFA and discuss the legal issues surrounding potential seizures of cryptocurrency by local or state law enforcement agencies in Florida.

To succeed in a forfeiture action, the State must establish the following at both an adversarial preliminary hearing and a final hearing (Gomez v. Village of Pinecrest, 17 So.3d 322 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2009)):

• The property in question was used in criminal activity
• The owner knew or should have known of the property’s use in that activity

Under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (Fla. Stat. Sections 932.701 through 932.762), police may seize property that is suspected of having been used in the commission of a crime in the state. Once property is seized, a multi-step process is triggered. 

If requested by the claimant, an adversarial preliminary hearing must be held within 10 days or as soon as practicable, provided the request is made within 15 days of receiving notice. Notice must be given within 5 days of the property’s seizure. A claimant in a civil asset forfeiture case is defined as the party from whom the assets in question are seized.

Probable Cause in Civil Asset Forfeiture 

Before seizing the property, law enforcement must first obtain a warrant to do so, arguing that they have probable cause the assets were used in the commission of an offense that satisfies the FCFA. At an adversarial preliminary hearing, the noticed party has a chance to challenge the State and law enforcement’s determination of probable cause.

Courts define probable cause as when the facts and reasonably trustworthy information known to the officer would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175–76 (1949). 

In accordance with this definition, the State must provide sufficient evidence at an adversarial preliminary hearing to justify continued seizure of the property on a probable cause basis. If probable cause that the assets were criminally used is not provided at the adversarial preliminary hearing (or successfully disputed by the claimant), the property must be released to its owner within five days of the judge’s determination that a lack of probable cause exists (932.703). 

If the State succeeds in establishing probable cause at the adversarial preliminary hearing, they must then file a formal forfeiture complaint. This must be filed within 45 days of the seizure, indicating that the State wishes to move to a final hearing (932.704(4)).

In the final hearing, the court will weigh whether the State can keep the seized assets permanently. For the forfeiture to become permanent, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the seized assets were used in or in furtherance of criminal activity, and the claimant knew or should have known this. Miami-Dade Police Dept. v. Forfeiture of $15,875.51, 54 So.3d 595 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2011). 

If the State succeeds, the assets are officially forfeited. Under Fla. Stat. Section 932.705(5), the government may use the seized assets for purposes such as:

• Supplementary funds for law enforcement operations
• Drug education and prevention programs
• Equipment purposes

Given all of this, there are a few major questions surrounding whether cryptocurrency can be subject to civil asset forfeiture under the FCFA:

• Do Florida police departments have in rem jurisdiction over the assets? 
• Are Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies even subject to the FCFA, given its ambiguous language?
• If even one dollar (or Satoshi) of cryptocurrency is traceable to a crime, does this allow the forced forfeiture of all someone’s cryptocurrency?

If a Florida law enforcement agency seizes cryptocurrency subject to the FCFA, an argument can be made that the cryptocurrency is not considered in rem – and thus, the police did not have the jurisdictional authority to seize it. This is because cryptocurrency is a digital asset that is held in non-physical wallets or locations (unlike cash, vehicles, jewelry, etc.).

For in rem jurisdiction to be established under the FCFA (and Florida’s Rules of Civil Procedure), one of two things is typically required of the seized assets:

• The assets must be physically located in Florida, or
• The custodian of the assets must be subject to Florida’s jurisdiction

The second of these provisions seems to allow a Florida resident’s cryptocurrency to be seized by state or local law enforcement – even if the cryptocurrency is located in a digital wallet – so long as the individual who holds the implicated cryptocurrency is in Florida. 

But if cryptocurrency is obtained through criminal schemes (such as money laundering), and the assets are transferred to another wallet that does not belong to someone in Florida, does law enforcement still have jurisdiction to seize the cryptocurrency from a non-Florida resident’s wallet? The answer is unclear.

Federal statutes such as:

• 18 U.S.C. § 981
• 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6)
• 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2)
• 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (RICO criminal forfeiture)
• 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)
• 19 U.S.C. §§ 1602–1619 (customs forfeiture procedures)

Are sometimes used to seize illicitly obtained or used cryptocurrency. However, local law enforcement agencies typically cannot rely on these federal laws to seize cryptocurrency (unless they are working as part of a federal operation). Knight v. State, 154 So.3d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

The next question – are cryptocurrencies subject to the FCFA at all – is also a matter of debate. Traditionally, contraband articles under the FCFA are limited to:

• Money, currency, or “other means of exchange”
• Other physical objects over which there is in rem jurisdiction for seizure

Fla. Stat. Section 932.701 provides that monetary assets used in the commission of a criminal offense may be seized if they are “instrumentalities” of the crime. Florida’s courts have not thus far recognized Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies as legal tender – providing support for an argument that the FCFA does not authorize its seizure in its current form. State v. Espinoza, 264 So.3d 1055 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2019)

In the event that cryptocurrency is seized by law enforcement in Florida, the State is likely to argue that the “other means of exchange” clause of the FCFA is a “catch-all provision” allowing the seizure of cryptocurrency. However, the State must still overcome the in rem jurisdictional hurdle.

A final question is: if just one dollar worth of cryptocurrency (even in a multi-million dollar wallet) is traceable to a crime in Florida, can the entire wallet be seized? The answer is yes. A general principle of forfeiture law is that if criminally used or misappropriated funds are deposited into an account, the entire account may be subject to seizure, as the funds have been commingled. 

The principle behind this is simple. If someone pours a packet of food coloring into a glass of water, there is no way to get all of the food coloring out of the glass of water without pouring out all of the water. 

As a bank account balance does not distinguish between “criminally obtained” dollars and legally obtained dollars, Florida law allows the seizure of the entire account if there is probable cause that funds within it were stolen or otherwise used in the commission of a crime. Zarcadoolas v. Tony, 353 So.3d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) 

But critically, the State must also prove that the person from whom the assets are seized knew or should have known that some (or all) of the funds within it were obtained via criminal means, or used in the commission of a crime. Without the State providing evidence of knowledge, the seizure cannot be legally supported.

This is particularly true in the context of cryptocurrency seizures – where Blockchain tracing (chain analysis) is utilized by law enforcement to attempt to recover stolen assets. Sometimes, law enforcement attempts to track down misappropriated or stolen cryptocurrency through a chain of many digital wallets. 

But if law enforcement does so and seizes a wallet based on some (or all) the cryptocurrency within it being allegedly used in criminal activity, their case for seizure becomes weaker if the nexus (connection) between the digital wallet and the allegedly misappropriated cryptocurrency is attenuated. Take two hypothetical examples:

Example 1: A bank robber steals $10,000 in cash. He goes next door immediately and buys an iPhone. Knowing the money was taken during a robbery, the cashier puts the deposited money into his bank account. In a case like this, law enforcement may be able to argue there is probable cause to seize the account, as the clerk knew or should have known the money was linked to a crime.

Example 2: Now imagine instead of putting the cash in his account, the clerk gave some of the cash to his mother for a rent payment (without telling her). The mother used some of that cash to tip a waiter. The waiter then used some of that cash to hire a babysitter for his younger sibling. The police come in and seize the babysitter’s bank account, tracing the cash back to the robbery.

The same is true of cryptocurrency. The more attenuated (weak) the connection between the original criminal activity a certain amount of cryptocurrency was implicated in and the person who now holds some of that cryptocurrency in their wallet, the harder it will be for police to successfully (permanently) seize someone’s wallet using asset forfeiture. 

This is because after a certain number of digital transactions (even though these are traceable on the Blockchain), it is virtually impossible to argue that someone “knew or should have known” the cryptocurrency they received was tied to a crime (see Example 2). 

In sum, civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement in Florida to seize property or money believed to have been used in the commission of a crime under the FCFA. The government may keep the property or money temporarily if it establishes probable cause at an adversarial preliminary hearing, and permanently if it proves by clear and convincing evidence that the property was used for criminal activity at the final hearing.

A major legal question is how cryptocurrency fits into this equation. If state or local police attempt to seize cryptocurrency wallets by arguing that some (or all) the funds within them are connected to a crime in Florida, various legal issues arise. These include:

• Whether Florida’s police have jurisdiction over the cryptocurrency
• Whether the FCFA covers cryptocurrency
• How many traceable cryptocurrency transfers it takes for someone to be sufficiently disconnected from the underlying alleged offense (due to lack of knowledge that the cryptocurrency they received was used in criminal activity)
• If someone has multiple cryptocurrency wallets and one wallet is implicated in criminal activity, can officers seize all their cryptocurrency wallets, or just the one with the disputed funds?

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case involving civil asset forfeiture, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share