Law enforcement is getting smarter and their money-tracking tools are sharper than ever.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) initiated civil recovery action under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”) against Joseph O’Connor, Keir Holme, and Kyle Lomax (the “Defendants”). It was believed that O’Connor had breached the cryptocurrency accounts of over 130 celebrities including Barack Obama and Jeff Bezoz in the USA. O’Connor was subsequently imprisoned in the US for offences including computer hacking, fraud, and money laundering, and had been ordered to forfeit illicit gains and compensate victims. UK authorities relied on the Defendants’ British nationality to justify efforts to confiscate assets suspected of being criminal proceeds.
In November 2025, the CPS secured a Civil Recovery Order under section 266 of POCA against O’Connor, enabling the recovery of approximately £4.1 million. This sum reflects the return of 42 Bitcoin alongside other associated crypto assets.
Is Cryptocurrency “property”?
The Court reiterated that cryptocurrency falls within POCA’s broad concept of “property,” consistent with the reasoning in DPP v Briedis (2021). This approach reflects the wider judicial trend of recent years. Since AA v Persons Unknown (2019) - the first case in which the High Court granted a proprietary injunction over Bitcoin - successive decisions, including Briedis and now O’Connor, have reinforced that crypto assets carry recognised property rights and can be pursued through asset recovery mechanisms.
Tracing crypto assets between countries
The CPS has worked for many years on its relationships with notably the USA or Spain investigators to facilitate the tracing of assets outside of jurisdiction before criminals are able to hide them.
The crypto assets totalling over £4M were held in accounts formally registered to Holme and Lomax, though effectively controlled by O’Connor. Indeed, this case is one of the largest crypto seizures in the UK, sending a clear message: legal agencies are getting smarter and developing sharper tools in following the money.
Jurisdiction and location of the crypto assets
Although the Bitcoin accounts controlled by O’Connor were hosted outside the UK, the High Court held that there was a sufficient connection to England and Wales to justify the proceedings. All three defendants were British nationals, and both Holme and Lomax were based in England when the accounts were created and when they managed the assets. The judgment establishes that UK courts can exercise jurisdiction over cryptocurrency held abroad where the individuals involved maintain a substantial link to the UK.
Indeed, in her judgement Mrs Justice Hill DBE, identifies that under section 282A(3) of POCA, the connection between the UK and the US in this case would be satisfied if “a person whose conduct was part of the unlawful conduct, or who holds the property in question, is linked to the relevant part of the UK”. A link will include “being a British citizen, or a person domiciled, resident or present in the relevant part of the UK” [106/107].
This development carries significant consequences for both defendants and prosecutors. It confirms that cyber-criminals cannot avoid asset recovery under POCA simply by transferring cryptocurrency or other digital assets outside the jurisdiction. UK authorities may still seek confiscation where a credible domestic connection exists.
How To Get In Contact
If you require assistance with any aspect of Cryptocurrency civil recovery, or have questions about your legal obligations, please contact our team on +44 204 600 9907 or email info@culbertellis.com.
Accurate at the time of writing. This information is provided for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
