How the SFO and HMRC use Crypto Wallet Freezing Orders

How have the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) used Crypto Wallet Freezing and Forfeiture Orders since their introduction in April 2024 – Part 2

Introduction of Crypto Wallet Freezing Order

In 2023, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (the “ECCT”) amended the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) to support the recovery of cryptoassets. One of these amendments lead to the introduction of the Crypto Wallet Freezing Order (“CWFrO”) and Crypto Wallet Forfeiture Order (“CWFO”), which became active in April 2024.

These orders are intended to work broadly in the same way as the Account Freezing Order but addressing the unique features of the technology underpinning cryptoassets.

We have explored the CWFrO in more detail in our blog.

In 2025, we compiled an overview on the use of CWFrOs and CWFOs by various UK Government enforcement agencies for 2024–2025, and then we did the same again in 2026 for the period of 2025–2026. Based on the information we collected, it appears that HMRC has been using these powers more than the SFO.

Our findings have been picked up by various media organisations, including an article in Solicitors Journal “SFO and HMRC use crypto orders”.

Background and Summary

July 2025 Freedom of Information Act Response

In July 2025, by way of submitting a Freedom of Information Act Request (“FOIA”), we were able to gather data which confirmed that in the period from April 2024 to July 2025, HMRC had sought and obtained more CWFrO and CWFOs than the SFO.

June 2026 FOIA Response

In June 2026, by submitting a further FOIA, we have been able to confirm that in the period from July 2025 to June 2026, HMRC have again sought and obtained more CWFrOs and CWFOs than the SFO.

It appears that the SFO has only obtained one CWFrO and one CWFO since their introduction in April 2024. In contrast, HMRC seems to have sought and obtained more orders, however the exact numbers are not clear.

Below we will examine in more detail the results of our FOIA requests.

2025 Gherson Freedom of Information Requests to the SFO and HMRC for the period of 2024–2025

In 2025, Gherson Solicitors LLP submitted Freedom of Information Requests (“FOIs”) to the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) and HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) to establish the use of CWFrOs and CWFOs by these government agencies since the introduction of the orders in the previous year. The results were telling.

2024 – 2025: SFO’s use of CWFrOs and CWFOs

Initially, the SFO responded saying that they had not sought or obtained any CWFrOs or CWFOs since their introduction in the previous year.

It appeared at odds with the SFO’s Business Plan for 2025–2026 which specifically made reference to activities aimed at developing the expertise of specialist staff in relation to “new capabilities in cryptoassets”.

Subsequently, in July 2025, the SFO confirmed that they had secured their first CWFrO.

2024 – 2025: HMRC’s use of CWFrOs and CWFOs

On the other hand, HMRC confirmed that the agency had used both CWFrOs and CWFOs. However, the figures were low: for the periods of 2024–2025 and 2025–2026, HMRC confirmed that it had sought fewer than five CWFrOs and under five CWFOs. The exact numbers have not been provided to prevent the risk of identifying the individuals concerned.

2026 Gherson Freedom of Information Requests to the SFO and HMRC for the period of 2025–2026

In June 2026, Gherson Solicitors LLP submitted further Freedom of Information Requests (“FOIs”) to the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) and HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) to establish the use of CWFrO and CWFOs by these government agencies in the period from July 2025 to June 2026.

Again, the results were telling.

2025 – 2026: SFO’s use of CWFrOs and CWFOs

In their response, the SFO confirmed that in the period from July 2025 to date, they had sought and obtained only one CWFrO and one CWFO. This information presumably refers to the CWFrO obtained in July 2025.

Again, it appeared inconsistent with the SFO’s Business Plan for 2026–2027, which specifically mentioned “developing and maximising cryptoasset investigation capabilities”.

2025 – 2026: HMRC’s use of CWFrOs and CWFOs

Meanwhile, HMRC has again confirmed that the agency continues to use both CWFrOs and CWFOs. However, the figures have been quite low again: HMRC has confirmed that, similarly to the previous period, the number of CWFrOs and CWFOs sought for the period of 2025–2026 has been under five for each of the orders. The exact numbers have not been provided to prevent the risk of identifying the individuals concerned.

The use of CWFrOs and CWFOs by other UK Government law enforcement agencies

Establishing the use of CWFrOs and CWFOs by the National Crime Agency (“NCA”) has proved to be more tricky, as the NCA is not subject to the same FOI laws as the SFO and HMRC. However, it is possible to ascertain that the agency has been using these orders, based on its frequent publications commemorating favourable outcomes.

What does all this mean?

The CWFrOs and CWFOs are merely a couple of tools in the armoury of UK law enforcement agencies that only suit certain investigations.

The FOI results demonstrate that HMRC has again been far more readily utilising these new powers. This, however, could be down to the fact that the SFO only focuses on investigating large and complex cases, which, by nature, are fewer in numbers, and this could be one of the reasons why they have not sought quite as many CWFrOs and CWFOs as HMRC.

HMRC, on the other hand, conducts many more small and domestic investigations, which could be the reason for its increased use of CWFrOs and CWFOs. An accompanying factor could also be that HMRC is just more willing to adopt technological changes.

What is an Account Freezing Order and Account Forfeiture Order?

In previous articles, we discussed the AFrO and AFO, and the Serious Fraud Office’s use of AFrOs.

What is an Account Freezing Order?

The rise and fall of the Serious Fraud Office’s use of Account Freezing Orders

How to Challenge an Account Freezing Order

We have also given an overview of the Crypto Wallet Freezing Order.

NAVIGATING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION-RELATED CHALLENGES

What can I do to try and challenge a wrongful decision to close my personal and/or bank account(s)?

In the meantime, we are increasingly being approached by individuals who have been “de-banked” in circumstances where they believe that they have always acted in full compliance with the relevant bank account’s Terms and Conditions and all other legal and applicable rules and regulations.

We have previously written about how other issues which individuals may face, including account closures, are not limited to political figures in the UK and affect many thousands of lawful individual and business customers every year. These cases have exposed the difficult balance many financial institutions and their individual and business customers must navigate to gain and maintain access to basic banking services.

To assist those whose accounts have been closed, Gherson’s Financial Crime, Investigations and Regulatory team have previously written blogs titled:

“Why has my bank account been closed?”

“Why has my business bank account been closed?”

“140,000 SMEs “de-banked” last year – why could I have been de-banked?”

“What are the proposed new laws aimed at preventing de-banking?”

“Why the proposed new laws to try and prevent de-banking to not go far enough”

“Am I entitled to a basic bank account in the UK?”

“How to challenge crypto-related bank account closures”.

What can I do to try and challenge a wrongfully imposed CIFAS marker?

We are also being increasingly approached by individuals who feel that a financial institution has wrongfully imposed a CIFAS marker in their name.

If you have always acted in full compliance with the relevant bank account’s Terms and Conditions and all other applicable legal rules and regulations, then you should have a good basis to challenge the bank’s decision to implement any CIFAS markers.

A strong challenge will often involve demonstrating, through evidence, that you have not breached the bank’s Terms and Conditions or rules, and that all transactions were at all times done in full compliance will all applicable laws and regulations.

In a previous blog, we examined what a CIFAS marker is and how to try and get it removed, as well as what you can do if a CIFAS marker has been wrongfully imposed.

We have also recently examined challenging a crypto-related CIFAS Marker: what you can do.

Adverse information on compliance databases

We are also being increasingly approached by individuals who feel that incorrect and/or inaccurate data stored about them in compliance databases is having an adverse effect on their relationship with financial institutions and who are facing subsequent issues, such as bank account closures or difficulties in opening a bank account.

We have also written a series of blogs covering the main functions of compliance databases like World-Check and how you can correct information about yourself on such databases.

HOW GHERSON CAN ASSIST

Gherson’s Regulatory, White-Collar Crime and Investigations team are highly experienced in providing assistance on what you can do if your bank freezes or closes your account. This includes assisting you in submitting a request under data protection legislation, otherwise known as a Data Subject Access Request, to ascertain what information banks and other financial institutions may be holding on you and their decision making, and then analysing the response and assisting with any appropriate challenge.

If you have any questions arising from this blog, or require advice on UK immigration, sanctions or related regulatory matters, please do not hesitate to contact us or, alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn to stay up-to-date.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2026