Crypto-assets recovery: now it's happening more often another question arises.

In a year or two, no one will remember what happened at "Colonial Pipeline" but they will remember that it was one of the early cases in which crypto-asset tracing resulted in the tracing and seizing of part of the ransom paid in crypto-assets. This, and the Mt.Gox case (which is still rumbling on) raise a fascinating question.

This raises a fascinating question as to value.

While the "how" in relation to the asset recovery is interesting on both a legal and technical level, that's not the point of this article. Let's jump to the compensation aspect, i.e. getting money back to victims.

Does the "loser"

a) get back the crypto-assets calculated by number as at the date of purchase. In this case its value has, for the moment at least, tanked; or does he

b) get back the dollar value paid for those assets. In this case, if that dollar value is refunded in crypto-assets, it gets back far more in number than it purchased to pay the ransom - and with it the potential for further reduction or increase in the price of those assets.

If the crime had taken place before a bull run in the price, if it gets back the dollar value paid for those assets, who gets the benefit of the increase?

We are already seeing this debate at the Mt.Gox liquidation where, astonishingly, there will be a surplus after the liquidation is finished which

a) raises the question over whether one has a fraud if there is no loss and

b) the owners of Mt.Gox stand to receive considerable fortunes after the liquidators, tax authorities and anyone else with lawful claims have had their money.

Had the assets been crystallised and converted at the outset, everyone would have lost everything.

In the case of criminal activity, then the value of the benefit (or even, in some countries, a multiple of the value of the benefit) can be attacked under either or both of fines and confiscation.

We await answers.