
Four National Tax Service officials propose amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act for seizing private-key wallets, after a February security breach exposed $4.8M in crypto.
South Korean tax officials have proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act that would create a legal framework for seizing digital assets held in self-custodied wallets, arguing that current rules do not cover wallets controlled through private keys.
Four officials from the National Tax Service, including investigation team leader Jang Hee-won, published a paper in the June edition of the Korea Institute of Criminology and Justice's Criminal Policy Research journal. The paper outlines legislative changes for handling self-custodied virtual assets during criminal investigations, Digital Asset reported.
Self-custodied wallets, including hardware wallets, hold crypto directly through private keys rather than through an exchange or other third-party custodian. The paper points to a 2025 Supreme Court ruling that confirmed Bitcoin held in an exchange wallet could be treated as property subject to seizure. The authors said the ruling did not establish how authorities should seize assets stored in personal wallets.
Unlike exchange-held assets, self-custodied digital assets cannot be physically possessed. Even if investigators seize a suspect's private key, the owner could retain another copy and transfer the assets elsewhere, the paper said.
The researchers argued that Article 120 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which governs search and seizure warrants, was not designed for blockchain-based assets. Transferring cryptocurrencies from one wallet address to another differs from opening or securing physical property, they said. The law also lacks procedural requirements covering asset types, wallet addresses, transfer methods and custody arrangements. Existing provisions governing asset preservation before confiscation would not fully prevent suspects from disposing of self-custodied digital assets because they do not authorize transferring assets to another controlled address.
To address those gaps, the paper proposes dedicated rules for seizing self-custodied digital assets. Search warrants should specify the type and quantity of digital assets being seized, verified wallet addresses, destination addresses, transfer methods and storage procedures whenever a suspect or owner controls the relevant private keys, the authors wrote.
Rather than transferring seized assets into a wallet managed by a single investigative agency, the authors recommended using jointly managed wallets involving the courts and investigative authorities to reduce theft and misuse risks. They also proposed allowing assets to be transferred temporarily to a court-designated address if immediate transfer to a jointly managed wallet is not practical and there is a risk that the suspect could move the funds. The paper concluded that legislation should clearly define the conditions for wallet transfers, warrant requirements, custody arrangements and management procedures so seized digital assets remain under shared oversight instead of being controlled solely by investigators.
The proposal follows a security lapse at South Korea's National Tax Service in February. A wallet recovery phrase was exposed in an official press release. Unauthorized parties later transferred about $4.8 million worth of crypto assets. The agency established a task force to improve seizure, storage and liquidation procedures while evaluating more secure custody systems. The agency also began reviewing plans to hire a private crypto custody provider.
The paper's recommendations could reshape how South Korean authorities handle crypto seizures, especially as self-custody adoption grows. The proposed joint wallet model aims to address both legal gaps and operational risks that became visible after the February incident.
Drafted by a large language model from the source reporting linked above, then screened by automated publishing checks. It is not read by a journalist before publication. Some articles cite our Alpha Score. Verify prices and figures against the original source. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.