How Crypto and Digital Banking Affect POCA Confiscation

Crypto, Revolut, Monzo and Part 2 POCA: The New Digital Battlefield in Confiscation

Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was drafted at a time when personal finance meant high-street banks, card payments, and cash withdrawals. It was never designed for a world where individuals routinely move money between apps, hold funds in virtual pots or shift value across borders in seconds through cryptocurrency.

Despite this mismatch, Part 2 POCA is now being applied to behaviours that did not exist when the legislation was created. As a result, modern confiscation cases often turn on misunderstood transactions, incomplete digital records and assumptions that do not reflect how people use financial technology today.

This blog explores how crypto activity and digital banks such as Monzo Bank and Revolut are reshaping POCA benefit calculations, lifestyle assumptions and hidden asset disputes. It also explains why early forensic accountancy makes a significant difference to the outcome.

Digital Banks Are Creating Evidence Gaps That Did Not Exist Before

Digital banks have transformed everyday finance. They are fast, convenient, and transparent for users. However, the way they store and present information can unintentionally create problems in confiscation proceedings.

App-based banks often provide statements that lack the depth of traditional formats. Internal transfers between pots can appear as income. FX conversions sometimes appear as top-ups. Round numbers, incomplete references and unusual transaction labels are standard. These features are perfectly normal for users, but can be problematic in a Part 2 POCA case.

When the Crown compiles a benefit schedule, unexplained activity is often treated as evidence of criminal property. Digital accounts with missing reference data or unusual labels make it easier for the prosecution to argue that the defendant cannot explain the flow of funds. Unless these movements are unpacked and interpreted correctly, they can be misrepresented as benefit or unexplained credits.

Crypto Tracing Is Frequently Misunderstood in Confiscation Cases

Cryptocurrency introduces even greater complexity. Transfers to or from a wallet are often presented as hidden assets, even when the underlying explanation is entirely legitimate. A transfer to a wallet does not mean the defendant still possesses the crypto, yet this assumption appears repeatedly in benefit schedules.

Crypto platforms such as Coinbase and Binance operate differently from traditional financial institutions. They use pooled wallets, internal reconciliation transactions and automated processes that can make the blockchain appear disconnected from the user’s actual account balance.

A simple example is a withdrawal from an exchange to an external address. Losses, fees, trading activity, or further movements may follow this later. Without a careful examination of exchange records, wallet behaviour and transaction sequencing, the Crown often concludes that the defendant still holds the original value. In many cases, this is simply incorrect.

Oversimplifying crypto activity leads to inflated benefit figures and aggressive allegations of hidden assets. A proper forensic review often reveals a far more nuanced story.

Lifestyle Assumptions Turn Ordinary Digital Activity Into Criminal Benefit

Lifestyle assumptions can transform a case entirely. Once lifestyle is triggered, unexplained movements are automatically treated as criminal property unless the defence can provide a clear alternative explanation.

This becomes especially difficult with digital banking and crypto, as transactions often appear unusual to anyone unfamiliar with the platform. Movements between pots in Monzo, instant transfers in Revolut, transfers to stablecoins, movement between exchange wallets or even failed trades can all be interpreted as income or expenditure linked to criminal conduct.

The court is required to assume the worst unless the defence can show otherwise. That means everyday digital behaviour can easily become part of a calculated benefit figure, even when the underlying reality is entirely innocent.

Hidden Asset Allegations Are Increasingly Built on Misinterpretations

A significant number of hidden asset disputes now arise from misunderstandings rather than genuine evidence. Confiscation schedules frequently treat unresolved wallet addresses as active holdings. They treat exchange withdrawals as retained assets. They treat P2P crypto transfers as income. They treat internal bank movements as unexplained credits.

The problem is not the legislation. It stems from a lack of understanding of digital financial behaviour. Without forensic interpretation, the Crown fills the gaps with assumptions, and Part 2 of POCA provides the legal framework to do so.

Why Early Forensic Financial Analysis Matters More Than Ever

Modern finance produces enormous amounts of data. Digital transactions are instant, layered and often automated. Without proper analysis, the meaning behind each transaction becomes unclear, and this lack of clarity is frequently used to the prosecution’s advantage.

Early forensic involvement helps to reconstruct each movement from start to finish. It provides the context that digital statements alone cannot. It allows the defence to challenge assumptions before they become entrenched in the confiscation narrative. Most importantly, it prevents benefit figures from spiralling out of control based on misunderstanding rather than evidence.

Final Thoughts

Part 2 POCA is one of the most potent tools in criminal confiscation. When applied to modern digital finance without proper analysis, it can produce distorted, inaccurate and unfair results.

Crypto activity, digital banks, and app-based financial behaviour are now central to many cases. They require proper forensic understanding, not assumptions based on incomplete information. With the right analysis, the defence can challenge inflated benefit figures, clarify digital transactions, and prevent hidden-asset allegations from taking hold.

If your case involves crypto, digital banks or unusual financial activity, early expert involvement can be the difference between a reasonable outcome and a damaging one.