Cryptocurrency & Digital Asset Defense

A digital asset investigation can begin with something that seems far removed from a criminal charge: agents ask about a wallet, an exchange account is subpoenaed, a phone or computer is seized, or a business owner learns that transactions are being traced. Sometimes the first notice is a grand jury subpoena, search warrant, target letter, or indictment.

Cryptocurrency can change the evidence in a federal case, but the core questions stay the same: what happened, who was responsible, what the person knew, and what the government can prove about intent.

Bedi & Singer represents individuals in complex federal investigations and prosecutions involving financial fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy, including cryptocurrency and digital asset matters.

There is no single federal offense called “cryptocurrency fraud.” Depending on the conduct alleged, a matter involving Bitcoin, Ether, a stablecoin, or another token can involve wire fraud, money laundering, theft or misappropriation, tax offenses, unlicensed money transmission, sanctions issues, investment fraud, or conspiracy. The presence of cryptocurrency does not itself establish criminal conduct.

As in other fraud cases, an unsuccessful investment or failed business venture is not by itself proof of criminal fraud.

Investigators may combine public blockchain data with exchange and bank records, devices, messages, IP information, and witness testimony to trace assets through multiple wallets to identifiable people. A blockchain address that does not display a name is not necessarily anonymous.

But tracing an asset and proving a crime are different things. In concealment money-laundering cases, the government alleges that transactions were designed to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of criminal proceeds. Funds moving through several addresses may look suspicious and still have a legitimate business or operational explanation.

The defense may turn on questions like these:

• Who actually controlled the wallet or account?
• Where did the funds originate, and why did they move?
• What communications accompanied the transaction?
• Was the client acting for someone else?
• What representations were made to investors or customers, and were they false?
• How were investor or customer funds actually used?

A person does not have to wait for an indictment to involve defense counsel. Bedi & Singer represents targets, subjects, and witnesses in federal investigations and advises clients responding to subpoenas. In a digital asset matter, investigators may already hold large quantities of electronic and transactional evidence before contacting the person under investigation.

Early work may include learning what the government is investigating, preserving records, evaluating who controlled accounts or wallets, and advising the client before anyone responds to agents.

Jonathan Bedi and Dena Singer both participate in Bedi & Singer’s cases rather than assigning a new client to another lawyer. Strategy, investigation, motion practice, negotiations, and trial preparation are shared decisions focused on what best serves the client.

Jonathan Bedi handles federal prosecutions from investigation through trial and appeal and has represented clients in matters involving wire and mail fraud, financial misconduct, bribery, public corruption, obstruction, and racketeering. Dena Singer has substantial experience defending complex white-collar cases involving financial fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy. The same bodies of criminal law apply when the transactions involve cryptocurrency.