Topic starter
12/07/2026 12:20 pm
TL;DR: FATF’s newest asset recovery guidance is pushing governments and investigators toward more standardised seizure, custody, inventory, and liquidation processes for digital assets, according to Chainalysis. The operational lesson is broader than crypto: recovery fails when governance, chain of custody, and cross-border coordination are treated as afterthoughts rather than controls.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Chainalysis: “The Reality of FATF’s Asset Recovery Guidance: Podcast Ep. 175”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when seized crypto assets are not placed under formal custody controls?
A: Without formal custody controls, seized crypto can become difficult to defend legally and operationally.
Q: Why does cross-border crypto recovery depend on standardised procedures?
A: Because investigators, courts, exchanges, and contractors often operate under different rules, recovery only works when the workflow is predictable and auditable.
Q: What are the signs that seized asset management is becoming a bottleneck?
A: Common signals include delayed wallet creation, inconsistent inventory records, unclear transfer authority, and repeated manual work to move assets between agencies or service providers.
Practitioner guidance
- Define seizure-to-custody workflows Document who can create wallets, move assets, approve transfers, and release seized value across every case type and jurisdiction.
- Separate evidentiary custody from liquidation steps Keep chain-of-custody records, inventory logs, and disposition approvals distinct so investigators can defend both possession and sale.
- Pre-negotiate exchange and banking access Establish standing procedures for onboarding seized assets into exchange or banking channels before a live case creates urgency.
Bottom line: The article shows that asset recovery fails when digital assets are treated as a tracing problem alone, because custody, inventory, and liquidation are the controls that determine whether seizure can be completed defensibly.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
12/07/2026 12:35 pm
Asset recovery has become an identity and access problem as much as a legal one: once digital assets are seized, the main failure mode is not discovery but controlled custody. The article shows that investigators need governed access to wallets, exchanges, and operational tools, and that is where traditional recovery models break down. For identity teams, the lesson is that authority, accountability, and handoff controls matter even after the asset is already in custody.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should be accountable for digital asset custody during recovery operations?
A: Accountability should sit with the authority that can prove legal control of the asset and maintain the evidence trail, while technical handlers operate under explicit delegated authority. That separation matters because recovery combines legal custody, operational custody, and evidentiary integrity. If those roles blur, the process becomes harder to defend.
👉 Read our full editorial: FATF asset recovery guidance raises the bar for crypto seizures