Technically, yes. The question worth asking is whether it stays hidden once a forensic investigation starts. The answer to that is almost always no.
TLDR | Key Takeaways
|
Cryptocurrency is easier to conceal than a bank account. There are no automatic statements, no third-party institution that can be compelled to produce records without the holder’s cooperation, no land registry entry or pension scheme confirmation. A wallet can hold substantial value and leave almost nothing visible to someone who does not know where to look.
Almost nothing. The blockchain itself is a permanent and publicly accessible record of every transaction ever made on it. What concealment relies on is the assumption that the other side lacks the tools or the knowledge to read it. That assumption does not hold up to a properly conducted investigation.
| Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 1
The most significant English authority on crypto in financial remedy proceedings. The husband disclosed his main Bitcoin portfolio, but mid-proceedings £371,000 in additional undisclosed Bitcoin wallets came to light. Mr Justice MacDonald found this constituted litigation misconduct and ordered the husband to pay £350,000 towards the wife’s legal costs. Total disclosed assets exceeded £26 million. The case illustrates the risks of selective disclosure where a forensic investigation is properly conducted. |
How Concealment Works in Practice
Understating Cold Storage
A cold storage wallet — typically a hardware device like a Ledger or Trezor, though it can also mean crypto stored as a recovery phrase on paper, a USB stick, or other offline media — holds cryptocurrency entirely outside any online system. The most common concealment pattern we encounter is a deliberate understatement of what is held on such a device, sometimes combined with a claim that the device has been lost, damaged, or that the recovery phrase has been forgotten.
This approach fails because the blockchain records every transaction into and out of a wallet address regardless of whether the hardware still exists. A wallet address derived from a single old exchange statement, a portfolio screenshot, or an email confirmation is enough to start an investigation that reveals the full transaction history. Physical access to the device is not required.
Wallet-to-Wallet Transfers
Moving assets directly between wallets involves no bank transaction. Nothing appears on any bank statement. On the blockchain, the transfer is fully and permanently recorded.
Forensic analysis maps the connections between known and unknown wallet addresses, identifying wallets linked to a disclosing party that they have no credible basis for denying. The absence of a bank transfer is not evidence that nothing moved. It is evidence that the movement happened entirely on-chain.
| From Our Casework
In a Financial Remedy matter in which WRS acted as forensic expert, the Respondent’s crypto disclosure consisted of a photograph of a cold storage wallet balance. No wallet addresses. No transaction history. No timestamps.
By cross-referencing visible elements of that image with on-chain records, we identified the specific public addresses behind the cold storage. Tracing outflows from those addresses revealed a direct transfer to a second exchange account that appeared nowhere in the financial disclosure. Because the funds moved wallet-to-wallet with no bank transaction, a conventional review of financial records would not have found it.
When presented with the transaction hash, the Respondent said: ‘I forgot.’
The second account was brought into the matrimonial pot and the settlement adjusted accordingly. |
Decentralised Exchanges
Centralised exchanges — Coinbase and Binance among them — require identity verification and maintain records. Decentralised exchanges (DEXs) allow assets to be swapped without a central record and without identity checks.
The transactions are still recorded on the blockchain. The wallet addresses involved are visible. Those addresses can be connected, through earlier and later activity, to accounts known to belong to the disclosing party. DEX use adds complexity to an investigation; it does not end it.
Privacy Coins and Mixing Services
Privacy coins and mixing services add genuine technical complexity. Neither provides complete protection: the entry and exit points of these systems are regulated and documented, and the existence and approximate value of funds passing through them can often be established even where the internal steps are obscured.
What to Look For
These are the most common indicators that cryptocurrency may be held but undisclosed:
- Payments to exchanges on bank or credit card statements, including Coinbase, Binance, Kraken, Gemini, MoonPay, or Crypto.com
- Hardware wallet devices such as Ledger or Trezor among personal possessions, or USB sticks, printed recovery phrases, or paper records stored securely
- Subscriptions to crypto portfolio or tax software: Koinly, CoinTracker, TaxBit
- References in messages, emails, or financial records to gas fees, staking, yield, or specific coin names
- Bank statement transfers to unrecognised accounts that correspond to typical exchange deposit amounts
- Lifestyle expenditure inconsistent with declared income
- A claim that a wallet is lost or inaccessible, without corroborating evidence
- A disclosure form showing only a single, modest exchange balance from a party whose bank history suggests active involvement in the market
What the Court Can Do
- Specific disclosure orders requiring production of public wallet addresses and transaction hashes for all material transfers
- Adverse inference orders, treating suspected assets at their maximum plausible value when dividing the matrimonial pot
- Freezing injunctions under Section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to prevent further movement during proceedings
- Costs orders against the non-disclosing party — in Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 1, this reached £350,000
- Contempt proceedings where concealment is deliberate and in breach of a court order
All of these require evidence. A forensic report that establishes clearly what existed, where it went, and why the account offered by the disclosing party does not hold up is what gives the court the foundation to act.
Read more in our series of guides on cryptocurrency and divorce:
If you are going through a divorce and need expert support, get in touch with us at Wealth Recovery Solicitors for a free consultation. Our friendly and experienced team can evaluate your case, to craft a recovery plan for you and work to recover your funds.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can cryptocurrency be hidden in a divorce?
It can be concealed more easily than a bank account because self-custody wallets produce no automatic statements. However, every transaction is recorded permanently on the blockchain and can be traced through forensic analysis.
What are the signs that a spouse is hiding crypto?
Common indicators include payments to exchanges on bank statements, hardware wallet devices, crypto tax software subscriptions, lifestyle inconsistent with declared income, and disclosure forms showing only a single modest exchange balance.
What happened in Culligan v Culligan?
The husband failed to disclose £371,000 in Bitcoin wallets mid-proceedings. Mr Justice MacDonald found this constituted litigation misconduct and ordered the husband to pay £350,000 towards the wife’s legal costs.
What can courts do about hidden cryptocurrency?
Courts can make specific disclosure orders, adverse inference orders, freezing injunctions, costs orders, and contempt proceedings. All of these require a forensic evidence base.
| Concerned about undisclosed cryptocurrency?
Our forensic team investigates hidden digital assets for clients and instructing solicitors across England and Wales. All consultations are confidential. |
| This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different and the law in this area continues to develop. If you are involved in proceedings where cryptocurrency may be relevant, seek independent legal advice from a qualified solicitor. |