DOJ Faces Accusations Over Bitcoin Sale
Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, along with the Department of Justice, are facing serious accusations right now. They’re alleged to have sold millions of dollars in seized Bitcoin, and this move might have directly violated an Executive Order from former U.S. President Donald Trump.
It seems the SDNY and DOJ sold the bitcoin that the Samourai Wallet developers paid as part of their plea deal. Executive Order 14233, which Trump signed on March 6, 2025, mandates that forfeited bitcoin be held in the U.S.’s Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The order created this reserve and clearly stated that all Bitcoin accumulated through federal forfeitures must be kept as a national reserve asset. It prohibited sale, but that’s apparently what happened.
The Samourai Wallet Case Details
The story revolves around Bitcoin forfeited in the case against Samourai Wallet, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency service. Reports show approximately 101 Bitcoins, worth about $6.3 million at the time, were sold by authorities.
These holdings came from the prosecution of Samourai Wallet’s founder, Keonne Rodriguez, and William Lonergan Hill. Both men were arrested in April 2024 on charges of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Prosecutors argued their platform’s privacy tools facilitated over $237 million in illegal transactions, including funds linked to dark web markets.
In August 2025, Rodriguez and Hill pleaded guilty as part of a deal. A major part of their plea agreement was forfeiting 101.213 Bitcoin to the U.S. government. According to Bitcoin Magazine’s report, blockchain data suggests the U.S. Marshals Service later transferred and sold this Bitcoin in late 2025. The Marshals Service manages and disposes of assets seized by the DOJ, and this sale is what critics claim broke the presidential order.
Previous Controversies in the Case
This isn’t the first time the Southern District of New York’s handling of the Samourai case has attracted backlash. Earlier in the prosecution, defense lawyers accused prosecutors of suppressing important evidence. They filed a motion in May 2025 to dismiss the case.
The motion alleged prosecutors withheld a 2021 guidance document from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. This internal document reportedly stated that non-custodial services like Samourai Wallet didn’t meet the legal definition of a money transmitting business. The defense argued this information was crucial and that its withholding violated their rights.
The crypto policy group Coin Center called it a breakdown in the system, where prosecutors appeared to ignore guidance from the very agency responsible for anti-money laundering rules. It’s a messy situation, honestly.
Community Reaction and Legal Implications
Frank Corva, a contributor to Bitcoin Magazine and Forbes, shared the story on social media. Since then, the crypto community has started demanding accountability. Some legal experts suggest this could lead to an internal review within the Department of Justice or attract attention from Congress.
There’s a bill introduced in June 2025, H.R. 3798, that’s expected to turn the President’s Executive Order into law. That could prevent such actions in the future, but it doesn’t help with what’s already happened.
The reported sale also questions the integrity of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which is estimated to hold about 210,000 Bitcoin from various forfeitures. If agencies are selling when they shouldn’t be, what’s the point of having a reserve policy? It creates uncertainty.
I think this situation highlights the tension between law enforcement procedures and new cryptocurrency policies. The DOJ has standard processes for handling seized assets, but those processes might conflict with newer executive orders about cryptocurrency reserves. It’s a classic case of old systems meeting new rules, and sometimes the transition isn’t smooth.
The timing is interesting too. With the executive order being relatively recent, perhaps there was confusion about implementation. Or maybe someone just didn’t get the memo. Either way, it’s created a significant controversy that won’t disappear quickly.
