An IT professional provided services to a dentist.

The dentist purchased a total of 30 bitcoins. These were managed through a wallet on the website blockchain.info. Subsequently, 30 bitcoin cash were credited in a wallet.

On the night of 1 to 2 September 2017, 30 bitcoins were sent in two transactions first from the bitcoin address to another bitcoin address and then from the latter address in multiple parts to yet another bitcoin addresses. The same happened with the 30 bitcoin cash.

In short – they were stolen!

The dentist had previously shared his private key with the IT expert, so it was not surprising that the IT guy was the prime suspect.

An investigation also confirmed this and when the IT expert was confronted with this by FOX-IT, the investigation agency, he confessed to the theft and also stated that he had converted the Crypto to Fiat -in other words, he had cashed out Euro 116,000.
After being confronted with this, he signed a written statement on the matter prepared by FOX-IT, which also stated that he was willing to compensate the dentist for the damage and that he could immediately pay at least Euro 77,950.

Nice right! Well not really – 3 days later and beyond embarrassment, our IT guy filed a report of extortion that the statement was allegedly obtained under pressure.

This case went all the way to the Supreme Court – not because of the theft of the coins, but because of how this statement was to be interpreted and what probative value it has.

Sounds boring, but it was quite exciting!

The Dutch Supreme Court ruled on 25th November 2022: Pursuant to Section 157(2) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP), an authentic or private instrument provides conclusive evidence between the parties of the truth of a party’s statement as to what the instrument is intended to prove for the other party. Section 158(1) of the DCCP provides that section 157(2) of the DCCP does not apply to a private deed in which obligations of only one party have been entered into or recorded, insofar as those obligations are for the payment of a sum of money, unless that party has written the deed entirely by hand or has provided it with an endorsement stating the sum of money in full in letters.
Simply put – something recorded on paper and signed in evidence between the parties is fixed – that is different if it is a promissory note.

The statement of the theft is fixed – but the promise of payment does not count as compelling evidence.

Now what?

If you catch someone and can extract a statement, make sure they write (and sign) the statement by hand and state the amount of money in full in letters!

One more thing, don’t share the private key to your wallet with anyone but keep it somewhere safe!