Judge Rejects Nine Claims to 127,271 Seized Bitcoin

On Sept. 25 Judge Rachel P. Kovner of the Eastern District of New York struck nine claims to 127,271 Bitcoin seized by U.S. authorities. Two timely claims, by Ath Leepinyo and Connie Wilson, were dismissed and seven requests to file late were denied. The judge found the claimants had not plausibly traced their alleged losses to the particular wallets at issue and therefore lacked Article III standing to contest the forfeiture.

The Justice Department filed a civil forfeiture complaint on Oct. 14, 2025, alleging the Bitcoin was connected to fraud and money laundering involving Prince Holding Group, a Cambodian conglomerate, and its chairman, Chen Zhi. The complaint states the coins are in U.S. custody.

Kovner wrote the claimants’ filings established, at best, that they were unsecured creditors owed compensation, not owners of the specific coins. The opinion said a claimant could gain standing by pleading an equitable interest, such as a constructive trust, but only if the loss can be traced to property in government custody. The judge found those factual connections were missing.

As an example, the order described claimant Lawrence D. Van Dyn Hoven relying on an investigator’s belief that his stolen cryptocurrency was part of the seizure. Kovner found no factual explanation tying that belief to the seized wallets.

The Sept. 25 order resolves standing for these nine filings but does not finalize forfeiture or transfer assets to a victims’ reserve. If the government secures forfeiture at the end of the civil action, victims may petition the Department of Justice for remission under 28 C.F.R. 9.8.

Under the remission rules, petitioners must document a specific financial loss directly caused by the offense underlying forfeiture or a related offense, show they have not been compensated for the loss, demonstrate they lack reasonably available alternative assets for recovery, and certify they did not knowingly participate in or benefit from the offense or act with willful blindness. When approved petitions exceed available assets, recognized victims receive proportional shares of the net forfeiture proceeds. Remission awards are discretionary and capped at each victim’s share of the net proceeds.

Whether these claimants recover any funds depends on two separate outcomes: the result of the government’s forfeiture action and a discretionary remission decision by the Justice Department for documented victims.