Crypto lawyer in Paris: blocked withdrawal, frozen account, assets to recover.

The causes are more varied than they appear. A common cause lies in the checks imposed by anti-money-laundering rules. Before entering into a relationship, the obliged entity identifies its client and verifies that information on presentation of supporting documents (Article L. 561-5 of the French Monetary and Financial Code). If it cannot do so, it carries out no transaction and ends the relationship (Article L. 561-8). Providers authorised under Article 59 of MiCA are among the obliged entities covered by Article L. 561-2 of the same code.

Other causes are beyond the provider's control. Tracfin may oppose a reported transaction (Article L. 561-24), and persons bound by a freezing measure apply it without delay (Article L. 562-4). A criminal seizure may also affect the assets. Finally, a block sometimes reveals a cash-flow difficulty: in Nice, the platform had itself announced the interruption of its operations because of liquidity difficulties (TJ Nice, réf., 11 February 2025, No. 24/01467). The firm first looks into which of these situations is involved, because it determines the useful step and the reasonable waiting period.

Sometimes, yes. A suspicious transaction report sent to Tracfin is confidential: the provider cannot disclose to the client its existence, its content or its follow-up (Article L. 561-18 of the French Monetary and Financial Code). Where Tracfin has, in addition, notified its opposition to the transaction, the law prohibits the person responsible for the transaction from disclosing to anyone the information that comes from it, on pain of the penalties provided by the same code (Article L. 561-24 of the French Monetary and Financial Code). The silence of support therefore does not, on its own, prove a fault.

This secrecy does not cover everything. A platform that demands supporting documents must say which ones and allow them to be sent. An authorised provider publishes a complaints procedure, supplies a standard template and communicates the outcome of its review within a reasonable time (Article 71 of the MiCA Regulation). Its decision addresses all the points raised, is reasoned and is given no later than two months after receipt of the complaint, save in exceptional circumstances, in which case it must explain the reasons and indicate the date of its decision (Article 6 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/294).

The judge also penalises misleading information. In Pontoise, the bank that gave access to a crypto service was ordered to make an interim payment of €3,000 for having presented the block as its own, which had left the client “in uncertainty as to the nature and origin of the block on his account” (our translation) (TJ Pontoise, réf., 9 January 2026, No. 25/00726). The firm checks what was said, by whom and on what date, before describing the silence as wrongful.

No text sets a single period valid for all situations. The MiCA Regulation requires the authorised custodian to have procedures allowing crypto-assets or the means of access to them to be returned as quickly as possible (Article 75(6) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114), without setting a specific time limit.

Some causes have their own timetable. A Tracfin opposition postpones the transaction by ten business days from the day the notification sent to the provider is issued, unless extended or sequestration is ordered by the president of the Paris judicial court (Article L. 561-24 of the French Monetary and Financial Code). A national freeze decided by the ministers for the economy and the interior is valid for six months, renewable (Article L. 562-2 of the same code); a criminal seizure depends on the decision of the judge who ordered it.

Outside these cases, the duration is assessed in light of the client's diligence and the explanations given. In the Nice case, the account had been blocked since February 2023 despite a formal notice of October 2023; the judge ordered the account to be unblocked subject to a penalty payment of €180 per day (TJ Nice, réf., 11 February 2025, No. 24/01467). The firm dates each step in order to show, when the time comes, that the hold is no longer explained.

Both contracts must be read. Some banks and applications offer an access service that passes on orders, while another company executes the purchases and holds the assets. In Pontoise, the judge found that the bank had no power to transfer the bitcoins, held by the partner platform, and refused to order the transfer against it (TJ Pontoise, réf., 9 January 2026, No. 25/00726).

The same judge found a separate fault on the part of the bank, which had presented the block as a routine check of its own without ever naming the partner platform, and ordered it to make an interim payment of €3,000 for non-material damage. The claim for material damage was dismissed, the reasons for the block being seriously disputed.

The lesson is practical. The request for restitution targets the company that holds the assets, identified in the general terms and in the register of positions that every authorised custodian keeps (Article 75(2) of the MiCA Regulation). The intermediary answers for its own failings, in particular as to information. The firm, where necessary, brings both companies into the same proceedings to avoid a second trial.

Yes, where the obligation is not seriously open to challenge. The urgent applications judge may then award an interim payment or order performance of the obligation, even where it is an obligation to do something; the judge may also prescribe the protective measures required by imminent damage or a manifestly unlawful disturbance (Article 835 of the French Code of Civil Procedure).

The urgent applications judge in Nice thus ordered a platform to unblock a user's account and to give the user the information relating to their personal data, subject to a penalty payment of €180 per day for three months. The file contained a court commissioner's record, a screenshot of the balance, the translated contract and a formal notice that had had no effect. The platform had neither appeared nor raised any argument (TJ Nice, réf., 11 February 2025, No. 24/01467).

A serious dispute stands in the way of an interim payment and of compulsory performance of the obligation: a plausible legal reason, a wrongly chosen defendant, fragile proof of the balance. It does not, however, exclude protective measures justified by imminent damage or a manifestly unlawful disturbance. The firm assesses these risks before choosing between an urgent application and an action on the merits, which allows a full debate on liability and loss.

The balance first. A dated screenshot showing the positions, the value displayed and the blocking message carries more weight if a court commissioner records it. In Nice, the record noted that the site stated that “it is possible to access one's account in read-only mode to view the balance and the list of movements” (our translation), and reproduced the state of the wallet (TJ Nice, réf., 11 February 2025, No. 24/01467).

Then the history: deposits, purchases, sales, withdrawal requests, with their identifiers and dates. The authorised custodian provides a statement of positions at least every three months and at the client's request, specifying the crypto-assets, their balance, their value and the transfers of the period (Article 75(5) of the MiCA Regulation). Ask for it in writing.

Finally, the contract and the exchanges: general terms accepted, identity of the contracting company, requests for supporting documents, documents sent and replies from support. The firm assembles these items into a chronology that will serve for the claim, for mediation and, if necessary, for the judge.

Closing the account does not extinguish the obligation to return the assets. The authorised custodian keeps a register of positions and puts in place procedures to return the assets or the means of access to them as quickly as possible (Article 75(2) and (6) of the MiCA Regulation). For euros held on deposit, the depositary returns the item deposited as soon as it is claimed, save where it has been seized or attached in its hands (Article 1944 of the French Civil Code).

The urgent applications judge in Paris points out that “banks acting as depositaries are bound, save exceptions, to return the funds deposited by their client on first demand” (our translation), and ordered a bank to close the accounts, return the balance and pay an interim payment of €4,000 (TJ Paris, réf., 1 August 2025, No. 25/54874). That was a bank account; the analogy with a crypto-asset account depends on the contract and on how the custody is characterised.

Where the closure follows an unsuccessful identity check, the law requires the provider to end the relationship; it does not, on its own, settle the fate of the holdings, which is a matter for the contract and the obligation to return. The firm requests restitution to an account or address in the client's name, supplying the supporting documents that allow the provider to carry it out.

Sometimes. An investigative measure may be ordered before any trial if there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish the evidence of facts on which the outcome of a dispute depends (Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure). The urgent applications judge in Lyon thus ordered a platform to provide the information needed to identify the holders of a wallet, together with “the temporary suspension of access to the services offered by the platform” (our translation), subject to a penalty payment (TJ Lyon, réf., 5 May 2025, No. 25/00183). The victim had filed a criminal complaint and produced an analysis locating part of the funds at that address.

The step can also fail. The judge in Les Sables-d'Olonne refused the blocking of wallets sought against the issuer of a token, noting that “the claimant does not manage to justify sufficiently the link between her Coinbase Wallet account and the Liquidity Pools whose blocking she seeks”, and that these requests “could lead to a situation of blockage for the other holders of the cryptocurrencies” (our translation) (TJ Les Sables-d'Olonne, réf., 28 April 2026, No. 26/00001). This unfavourable decision shows the need for a precise analysis report and for proportion in the measure requested.

Often, but the answer depends on your status and your domicile. Against a professional established outside the Union, a consumer domiciled in France on the date of the writ of summons cannot be deprived, by a clause designating a foreign court, of the right to bring the case before the French judge (Cass. 1re civ., 7 October 2026, No. 25-14.323). Consumer status must be established.

The notion of activity directed towards France remains demanding. The Court of Cassation approved a court of appeal that had held that “the mere accessibility of the trader's website in the Member State in whose territory the consumer is domiciled was insufficient” (our translation), before quashing the judgment on another ground and declaring the French court competent, the client being domiciled in France (Cass. 1re civ., 17 June 2026, No. 24-21.528).

The protection disappears for the professional investor. In Toulouse, the court held that a client who had invested in the course of their activities “cannot be recognised as a consumer” (our translation), found that the Toulouse judicial court, seised despite a clause designating the Estonian courts, lacked jurisdiction, and overturned the order obtained (CA Toulouse, 3e ch., 25 June 2025, No. 24/02146). Once international jurisdiction is established, the consumer may bring the case before the court of the place where they lived when the contract was concluded (Article R. 631-3 of the French Consumer Code).

This is rarely fruitful. The judicial court of Privas held that a platform that had acted “solely as a technical platform for the exchange and custody of crypto-assets” (our translation) was under no duty to inform, advise or warn on the advisability of investments made with third parties, and dismissed the client's claims (TJ Privas, 1re ch., 17 March 2026, No. 25/02750).

The same judgment holds that “the transfer of crypto-assets to an external wallet is the usual activity and the very function of an exchange platform” (our translation) (same judgment). On the duty of vigilance in carrying out transfers intended by the client, the court requires an apparent anomaly, for example a destination address or platform publicly flagged on the day of the transactions; the claimant did not prove one. Other grounds remain distinct, such as the custodian's liability for the loss of assets resulting from an incident attributable to it (Article 75(8) of the MiCA Regulation). This decision is unfavourable to clients.

The anti-money-laundering route is also closed. The Court of Cassation holds that the duty of vigilance imposed on financial institutions pursues solely the fight against money laundering and does not found a claim for damages by the victim (Cass. com., 4 March 2026, No. 24-19.588). The firm therefore looks for a precise apparent anomaly, an identified contractual breach or a fault of the platform's own, rather than a general complaint of passivity.

You must act within the time limits of the procedure. From the publication of the judgment, creditors file their claims with the creditors' representative within the time limits set by decree (Article L. 622-24 of the French Commercial Code). A claim for recovery of movable property can be brought only within three months of publication of the opening judgment (Article L. 624-9).

European law protects assets held by an authorised provider: they are legally segregated from its estate and its creditors cannot assert any right over them, in particular in the event of insolvency (Article 75(7) of the MiCA Regulation). It remains to check the custodian's status under MiCA and to identify the assets that belong to you, which the statement of positions and the inventory make possible.

Proceedings sometimes come about abruptly. The commercial court of Antibes directly opened the liquidation of a crypto-currency payment operator after the AMF removed its registration, noting that reorganisation was manifestly impossible (T. com. Antibes, 28 July 2026, No. 2026F00565). The firm prepares the proof of claim, examines the claim for recovery of identifiable assets and follows the distributions.

It is not always compulsory, but it is often useful. Every consumer has the right to have recourse, at no cost, to a consumer mediator, and the professional must guarantee effective access to such a scheme (Article L. 612-1 of the French Consumer Code). The general terms in principle name the competent mediator.

The AMF mediator receives complaints that fall within the competence of the Authority, which grants authorisation to crypto-asset service providers (Article L. 54-10-7 of the French Monetary and Financial Code). Referral to it suspends the limitation period for the civil action, which starts to run again for at least six months when the mediation ends (Article L. 621-19).

Mediation does not suit every situation. Where the platform no longer responds, announces its closure or raises fears that the assets will disappear, the firm favours an urgent application or a protective measure. An action for restitution or for liability is in principle subject to a five-year limitation period from the day the holder knew or should have known the facts (Article 2224 of the French Civil Code).

Not necessarily. In a contract concluded with a consumer, a clause is unfair if it creates, to the consumer's detriment, a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties (Article L. 212-1 of the French Consumer Code). The assessment turns on the clause, its purpose and the context of the contract.

A clause that allows the service to be suspended in order to meet a legal obligation generally withstands criticism. Between professionals, the Court of Cassation has held that “a hosting provider does not create a significant imbalance” (our translation) by reserving the right to suspend its services promptly for legal reasons and then applying the clause, having been informed that a site was misleading (Cass. com., 4 September 2024, No. 22-12.321). The decision, given on the basis of the Commercial Code, is unfavourable to the suspended user.

A challenge is more likely to succeed against a clause that authorises a freeze without reason, without duration, without information and without any way out, or that deprives the client of the return of their assets. The firm tests the clause applied against the real cause of the block and the custodian's obligations to return the assets.