A Canadian judge has ordered that a laptop containing a Bitcoin wallet be returned to the family of William Sandeson, a man serving a life sentence for the 2015 killing of university student Taylor Samson — a decision that highlights the evidentiary challenges prosecutors face when trying to tie cryptocurrency to criminal activity. What happened - Justice John Bodurtha of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that prosecutors failed to show the Bitcoin was connected to the murder or to drug proceeds. Bodurtha said the Crown had not met its burden and that any suggestion the cryptocurrency was used in the drug transaction was “hypothetical.” - Sandeson, who appeared virtually at the Halifax hearing, had sought the return of personal items seized during the police search of his apartment after his 2015 arrest. - The judge did rule, however, that roughly $3,600 (C$5,000) in cash seized at the time was “offence-related property” and will not be returned. Amounts and valuation - Sandeson previously estimated the Bitcoin’s value at the time as roughly $5,800–$7,200 (C$8,000–C$10,000). - A lawyer representing Samson’s family in a separate wrongful-death suit has said the cryptocurrency — which Global News did not disclose the quantity of — could now be worth more than $144,000 (C$200,000) given Bitcoin’s price appreciation. Case background - The case stems from the August 15, 2015 killing of 22-year-old Taylor Samson, who was allegedly lured to Sandeson’s apartment to sell cannabis Sandeson had arranged to buy for C$40,000. Prosecutors said Sandeson shot Samson, kept the drugs and money, and later admitted dumping the body in a river; the remains have never been found. - Sandeson, then 23 and about to begin medical school at Dalhousie University, was convicted of first-degree murder in 2017; that verdict was overturned on appeal in 2020. At a 2023 retrial he admitted shooting Samson but said it was self-defence; a jury convicted him of second-degree murder. He is serving his sentence in Quebec and will be eligible for parole in 2030. Why it matters to crypto - The ruling underscores a recurring legal hurdle: prosecutors must provide clear evidence linking cryptocurrency assets to criminal acts or proceeds. Volatility in value, anonymized ownership, and gaps in transaction history can make that link difficult to prove in court. - For victims’ families and defendants alike, the decision also highlights how the current legal framework treats seized digital assets differently from cash when the provenance is uncertain. The decision leaves open questions about how much Bitcoin was in the wallet and what will become of it if its value continues to climb. It may also prompt closer scrutiny of how law enforcement documents and proves the criminal provenance of crypto assets in future cases. Read more AI-generated news on: https://app.chaingpt.org/news