Mentioned in This Article
1. Nova Scotia judge orders a Bitcoin wallet returned
A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge ruled on Tuesday, November 3, that a laptop containing a Bitcoin wallet must be returned to the family of William Sandeson, who is serving a life sentence for the 2015 murder of Dalhousie University student Taylor Samson. Justice John Bodurtha found that prosecutors had not proven the Bitcoin was connected to the killing. The wallet's value is disputed, with estimates ranging from about C$8,000 to more than C$200,000.
Sandeson appeared by video from Halifax for the decision. In April he had filed a motion asking the court to return personal belongings that were seized from his apartment when he was arrested in 2015. The laptop with the Bitcoin wallet was among those items, and it became the most contested part of the request.
The ruling does not address the guilt or innocence of Sandeson, whose convictions and sentence stand. It concerns only whether the state may keep property that police took during the investigation. That distinction is central to understanding the decision: seizure for an investigation does not automatically give the Crown a right to keep an item permanently.
The judge's conclusion also leaves open a second legal fight. A separate wrongful death lawsuit brought by Samson's family has the wallet at its center, and the family's lawyer has said the Bitcoin could now be worth more than US$144,000.
2. Why was the Bitcoin wallet returned to the family?
Justice Bodurtha concluded that the Crown had not met its burden of showing the cryptocurrency was used in the drug transaction, was proceeds of crime, or was otherwise tainted. In a motion of this kind, the party that wants to hold seized property must show a sufficient link between the property and the offence. The judge found that link missing.
He described the potential use of the Bitcoin in the drug deal as hypothetical. In other words, prosecutors had pointed to a possibility that the digital assets played a role in the transaction, but the court did not find evidence establishing that they did. A possibility, in the judge's assessment, was not enough to justify keeping the wallet.
Cryptocurrency cases can be harder to prove than those involving physical items. A wallet on a laptop may hold access to funds, but showing that those funds were obtained through crime, or were meant to be used in a specific deal, usually requires transaction records or other evidence connecting the assets to the conduct. Without that evidence, a court has little basis for classifying the holdings as offence-related property.
The decision also illustrates how the standard applies to digital assets in the same way it applies to cash or other possessions. Ownership is presumed to remain with the person from whom the item was taken unless the state demonstrates a legal reason to keep it.
The practical consequences of returning a wallet are also worth noting. A Bitcoin wallet is controlled by whoever holds its keys, and a laptop that contains those keys is effectively a container for the assets. Returning the device therefore places the funds within reach of the recipient, which is why the separate civil claim by the victim's family carries such weight and why the question of who may access the holdings is likely to remain contested.
Courts in many jurisdictions have dealt with similar questions about seized digital property. The core issue is typically whether authorities can show that an asset is connected to wrongdoing, and the answer depends on evidence presented to the judge rather than on the nature of the asset itself.
3. What happened to the cash seized from the apartment?
The ruling was not a complete win for Sandeson. About US$3,600, equal to C$5,000, in cash found in the apartment was treated differently from the Bitcoin. The judge classified that money as offence-related property, which means it will not be returned.
The contrast between the two outcomes is informative. The cash was found in the place where the events of 2015 unfolded and, in the judge's view, had a connection to the offence. The Bitcoin, by contrast, lacked a demonstrated link, so the court treated it as ordinary personal property that belonged back with its owner's family.
The split decision shows the court applying the test item by item rather than treating everything seized as one block. Each piece of property had to be assessed on whether the Crown could connect it to the crime, and the results differed accordingly.
4. How much is the Bitcoin wallet worth?
The value of the wallet is a point of disagreement. Sandeson has said the Bitcoin was worth roughly US$5,800 to US$7,200, or C$8,000 to C$10,000. A lawyer representing Samson's family in the separate wrongful death case says that, at present prices, it could exceed US$144,000, or C$200,000.
The gap reflects how much the price of Bitcoin has moved over the years and the difference between the value at the time of seizure and the value today. The size of the holdings has not been publicly reported, so neither figure can be checked against a stated number of coins.
Because Bitcoin is volatile, the worth of a wallet that has sat untouched on a seized laptop since 2015 can change dramatically depending on the date it is measured. That matters for the civil litigation, where the amount at stake may influence how the family and the court approach a possible recovery.
5. What is the background of the Sandeson case?
Sandeson was 23 and preparing to begin medical school at Dalhousie University when he arranged for Samson, 22, to come to his apartment on August 15, 2015. According to prosecutors at his 2023 trial, the purpose of the visit was a sale of cannabis that Sandeson had arranged to buy for C$40,000. Sandeson shot Samson, kept the drugs and the money, and later admitted dumping the body in a river that feeds the Bay of Fundy. Samson's remains have never been found.
The legal path has been long. In 2017 Sandeson was convicted of first-degree murder. In 2020 an appeals court overturned that verdict. At the retrial in 2023, he admitted shooting Samson but argued self-defense. The jury rejected that account and convicted him of second-degree murder, a conviction that carries an automatic life sentence.
He is serving the sentence in Quebec and becomes eligible for parole in 2030. The property motion he filed in April is separate from those proceedings, and the outcome does not alter his conviction or the length of time he must serve before a parole review.
The case also touches on a broader point about how long legal processes can take. More than ten years have passed since the events of August 2015, and in that time the verdict was overturned, a retrial was held and a conviction was entered again. Property seized at the start of the investigation has remained in the custody of the authorities throughout, which is part of the reason its value has become so uncertain and so disputed.
Samson's family has lived with the absence of his remains for the same period. The wrongful death suit represents their effort to seek a civil remedy alongside the criminal outcome, and the Bitcoin has become a focus of it because it is one of the few identifiable assets connected to Sandeson.
6. What does the ruling mean for crypto and forfeiture cases?
The decision highlights a practical challenge for prosecutors: linking digital assets to a crime. When authorities seize a device holding a cryptocurrency wallet, they must be able to show how the holdings relate to the offence if they want to keep them. Where that connection cannot be established, courts may be required to return the property.
For law enforcement, the case is a reminder that evidence about a wallet, such as its transaction history and its role in an alleged crime, needs to be gathered while the case is active. For civil litigants, it shows that the question of who ultimately receives digital assets can be decided in a different court, under different rules, from the criminal trial.
The ruling is specific to the facts before Justice Bodurtha and does not set a general rule that crypto held by convicted offenders must be returned. It does indicate that courts will ask for concrete proof rather than speculation about how an asset might have been used.
7. What happens next?
The next stage is the wrongful death lawsuit by Samson's family, which centers on the Bitcoin. With the criminal court declining to treat the wallet as tainted property, the civil case becomes the main forum where claims over its contents will be argued. Whether the family can obtain the assets or their value will be decided there.
The outcome will also be watched by lawyers who handle seizure and forfeiture matters involving cryptocurrency. It shows that a court will insist on evidence tying an asset to the offence, and that the burden rests with the Crown. How the civil court treats the same wallet may offer further guidance on how digital assets are handled once a criminal case has concluded and a convicted person's property is in dispute.
No further court date for the wallet was reported in connection with Tuesday's ruling. Sandeson remains in custody in Quebec, where he is serving his life sentence, with parole eligibility in 2030.