A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge has ordered the return of a Bitcoin wallet to the family of William Sandeson, a convicted murderer serving a life sentence, after finding prosecutors failed to establish the cryptocurrency was connected to a 2015 killing. The ruling underscores the high evidentiary bar required to prove digital assets are proceeds of crime—even in cases involving violent felonies.
According to reporting by Global News, Justice John Bodurtha ruled Tuesday that the Crown “has not met its burden to demonstrate the cryptocurrency was used as part of the drug transaction, proceeds of crime, or otherwise tainted by criminality.” The judge characterized any link between the Bitcoin and the murder as “hypothetical.”
The case centers on Sandeson’s 2015 killing of Dalhousie University student Taylor Samson during an arranged cannabis transaction. Sandeson, then 23 and a medical school applicant, shot Samson, kept both the drugs and approximately C$40,000 in cash, then disposed of Samson’s body in a river. He was convicted of second-degree murder in 2023 and is now serving his sentence in Quebec with parole eligibility in 2030.
The Bitcoin Dispute and Valuation Discrepancy
The wallet’s value has become a focal point of dispute. Sandeson claims the Bitcoin was worth between C$8,000 and C$10,000 at the time of seizure. However, lawyers representing Samson’s family in a parallel wrongful death lawsuit have valued it at more than C$200,000—a figure that reflects Bitcoin’s substantial appreciation since 2015, when the asset traded near $400.
Police seized the laptop during a search of Sandeson’s apartment following his arrest in 2015. The device sat in custody for years while prosecutors argued it constituted proceeds of crime. The Crown did successfully argue that approximately C$5,000 in cash discovered in the apartment should be classified as “offence-related property” and retained.
A Narrow Victory for Asset Recovery Standards
Bodurtha’s decision reveals how courts assess cryptocurrency seizures in criminal proceedings. The judge required prosecutors to demonstrate a direct nexus between the Bitcoin and the crime itself—not merely that the defendant possessed it. Without evidence the digital asset was acquired through the drug deal or used to facilitate it, the Crown’s case crumbled.
This standard matters beyond this case. As courts worldwide grapple with cryptocurrency asset forfeiture, the ruling suggests prosecutors must prove specific criminal use of digital holdings, rather than relying on circumstantial possession. Sandeson’s legal team, which filed a motion in April seeking return of seized personal items, successfully exploited this evidentiary gap.
The outcome complicates the Samson family’s wrongful death litigation. With the Bitcoin now potentially returning to Sandeson’s control rather than being available for civil remedies, it underscores the tension between criminal asset forfeiture and civil claims against convicted offenders—a problem that may intensify as cryptocurrency valuations continue to diverge from historical purchase prices.