Did the U.S. Department of Justice openly defy Trump? Samouiri's seizure of $6.3 million worth of Bitcoin may have already been secretly sold

On January 5, 2026, multiple cryptocurrency media outlets reported that the U.S. Department of Justice may have secretly sold approximately 57.55 bitcoins, seized from Samourai Wallet co-founders Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill, through the U.S. Marshals Service, valued at about $6.3 million.

This move is alleged to potentially violate Executive Order No. 14233 signed earlier by President Trump, which explicitly requires federal agencies to treat seized bitcoins as “U.S. government bitcoins” and include them in the U.S. strategic bitcoin reserve, prohibiting arbitrary sales. However, in-depth on-chain data analysis shows that these bitcoins indeed flowed into a Coinbase Prime custody address, but blockchain evidence does not conclusively prove they have been sold. The controversy surrounding “on-chain traces” and “executive orders” is not only about asset disposition but also reveals internal disagreements and power struggles within the U.S. judicial system regarding cryptocurrency policy.

On-Chain Tracking: The “Disappearance” and “Unsold” Mystery of $6.3 Million in Bitcoin

The incident traces back to November 3, 2025. According to an exclusive “Asset Liquidation Agreement” obtained by Bitcoin Magazine, the two founders of Samourai Wallet agreed in a plea deal to transfer bitcoins worth $6,367,139.69—equivalent to 57.55353033 bitcoins at the time—to the U.S. Marshals Service. On-chain data clearly records the movement of this asset: on that day, the bitcoins were transferred from address bc1q4pntkz06z7xxvdcers09cyjqz5gf8ut4pua22r (marked as related to the Samourai seizure case).

The key turning point is the receiving address. The assets did not go directly into a U.S. government-controlled wallet but flowed to an address marked as Coinbase Prime Deposit by the on-chain analysis platform Arkham Intel: 3Lz5ULL7nG7vv6nwc8kNnbjDmSnawKS3n8. Coinbase Prime is Coinbase’s high-end custody and trading service for institutional clients. Subsequently, the funds were quickly “emptied” from this address to another address also marked as Coinbase Prime, 1AaFQ…, and ultimately integrated into a large Coinbase Prime custody cluster containing thousands of addresses. At this point, the visible on-chain trail of these bitcoins on the public blockchain essentially disappears.

Media reports based on the phenomenon of “zero balance in the original deposit address” infer that the bitcoins have been sold. However, professional on-chain analysts point out that this is precisely standard operating procedure for custodial services. Institutional custody platforms regularly consolidate client assets from deposit addresses into more core hot and cold wallet pools for security and management efficiency. Zero balance only indicates that funds have been transferred, not that assets have been liquidated or sold. More importantly, on platforms like Coinbase Prime, the exchange between bitcoins and USD occurs within their internal off-chain ledger system. Actual trading, settlement, and fiat transfers are not directly reflected on the bitcoin blockchain. Therefore, based solely on blockchain data, we can only confirm that “assets entered compliant custody channels,” but cannot confirm “assets have been sold by the government.”

Key On-Chain Footprint of Seized Samourai Bitcoins

Seizure basis: According to the plea agreement, based on Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 982(a)(1).

Transfer date: November 3, 2025.

Transferred amount: 57.55353033 bitcoins (worth approximately $6,367,139.69 at the time).

Source address: bc1q4pntkz06z7xxvdcers09cyjqz5gf8ut4pua22r (related to the Samourai case).

First receiving address: 3Lz5ULL7nG7vv6nwc8kNnbjDmSnawKS3n8 (marked as Coinbase Prime Deposit by Arkham).

Key on-chain features: The funds were subsequently consolidated into Coinbase Prime’s internal custody cluster, without flowing to known exchange hot wallets or settlement addresses.

Verifiable on-chain conclusion: The assets entered Coinbase Prime custody, but it cannot be verified whether they have been sold.

Legal Red Line: Did this transaction violate Trump’s executive order?

Regardless of whether on-chain evidence is sufficient, the core controversy of this incident lies in its potential violation of the highest executive directive—President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14233. This order aims to establish a “U.S. strategic bitcoin reserve” and makes very explicit provisions regarding the source and disposition of such funds. It defines bitcoins obtained through criminal or civil forfeiture as “government bitcoins” and explicitly instructs: “Agency heads shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any government digital assets,” except in specific limited circumstances involving the Attorney General’s decision.

From a legal perspective, the seized bitcoins in the Samourai case fully meet the definition of “government bitcoins.” They are based on criminal forfeiture laws, and the assets directly originate from convicted criminal activity. Therefore, according to the literal wording of the executive order, the proper destination for these assets should be transferred into the Treasury Department’s strategic reserve account, not liquidated through any channel. If the U.S. Marshals indeed instructed Coinbase Prime to sell these bitcoins on November 3, it would be a blatant violation of the presidential executive order.

However, legal reality is often more complex than the text. Confirming “violation” requires going beyond blockchain evidence and official written records, including: court-issued asset disposition orders, U.S. Marshals’ asset management records, and Coinbase Prime’s transaction execution and settlement documents. These are not public data. Reports supporting the “sold” view cite a purported “Asset Liquidation Agreement” document, implying a sale was planned. But this still does not constitute conclusive proof of sale. Another possibility is that the transfer to Coinbase Prime was merely for “custody,” perhaps awaiting formal allocation to the strategic reserve. Without official definitive documents, both possibilities remain.

The core of this controversy is a microcosm of the power struggle and ideological conflicts within different branches of the U.S. federal government. The prosecution of Samourai Wallet began under the previous administration, with a tone hostile to non-custodial crypto tools. Although the Trump administration has reversed some policies through executive orders and DOJ memos (as will be discussed below), prosecutors and offices involved in specific cases may still operate under old mindsets, viewing bitcoins as contraband to be swiftly removed from government assets rather than as strategic assets worth holding. The role of the Southern District of New York in this matter is particularly noteworthy.

“New York Sovereign Zone”: An Uncontrolled Judicial Enclave?

To understand the deeper logic of this incident, one must look at the specific court handling the case—the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Known for its strong independence and aggressive stance, it is often jokingly called the “New York Sovereign Zone” within the federal judiciary. It has repeatedly taken actions in cases involving cryptocurrency, finance, and high-tech that diverge from the overall federal policy direction, exhibiting a “kingdom of independence.”

The Samourai case is a typical example. On April 7, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memo titled “Ending Regulation Through Prosecution,” explicitly stating that “the Department of Justice will no longer pursue cases solely based on the behavior of end-users of virtual currency exchanges, mixing services, or offline wallets.” Widely interpreted as a signal of friendliness toward the crypto industry and a limit on over-prosecution, this guidance does not seem to have been fully adopted by prosecutors in the Southern District. They continue to pursue charges against Samourai Wallet’s founders and have also taken on similar cases against Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm.

Further evidence comes from the case proceedings themselves. According to reports, defense attorneys obtained documents through a “Brady motion” indicating that two senior officials from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Treasury “strongly suggested” that, due to the non-custodial nature of Samourai Wallet, it might not constitute a money transmission service. Yet, the Southern District prosecutors ignored this internal advice from a professional regulatory agency and proceeded with the indictment. This disregard for higher-level guidance and peer professional opinions highlights the unique stance and style of this judicial district.

Therefore, even if President Trump’s executive order is clear, whether the Southern District and its associated U.S. Marshals have the motivation or obligation to immediately comply remains questionable. For them, completing the “liquidation” of “criminal” assets may take precedence over following a new policy on the national bitcoin reserve. This friction and lag within the system are critical dynamics to observe in the implementation of U.S. crypto policy. They show that the end of a “war” is not something that can be achieved instantly by a presidential order; the shift of “soldiers” on the front lines takes time and stronger incentives.

The Endgame of the Crypto War? A Reflection on Asset Disposition and Policy Integrity

The cloud over the disposal of the seized bitcoins from Samourai ultimately points to a larger, more community-focused issue: Is President Trump’s promise to “end the war on cryptocurrencies” truly being fulfilled? Many supporters of Trump in the 2024 election, who favor pro-crypto policies, are closely watching such incidents as a litmus test for the new administration’s policy credibility.

The Trump administration’s signals of pro-crypto stance are clear: EO 14233 aims to nationalize bitcoin assets into a reserve; DOJ memos call for halting indiscriminate prosecutions of developers; the President himself has publicly considered pardoning one of the Samourai founders, Keonne Rodriguez. These actions outline a top-level blueprint embracing innovation and viewing bitcoin as a strategic asset.

However, actions by the Southern District (and the possible sale of assets in this case) appear as a glaring patch on that blueprint. They reveal that the old bureaucratic inertia and judicial habits remain strong enough to counter or delay the implementation of new policies. For the crypto industry, the greatest threat is not outright enemies but “allies” who talk friendly but act as enemies. This disconnect between policy signals and enforcement can severely undermine market confidence in regulatory predictability.

Therefore, the subsequent development of this incident will carry symbolic weight. If the White House or DOJ intervenes to clarify that the bitcoins were not sold, or to hold accountable any illegal sales, and formally allocates the assets into the strategic reserve, it would be a strong reaffirmation of authority and policy coherence. Conversely, if the matter is left unresolved or if it is confirmed that the sale occurred without repercussions, doubts about the seriousness and enforcement of the executive order will grow, and the narrative of “strategic reserve” and “ending the war” will be significantly weakened.

Ultimately, the debate over these 57.55 bitcoins, worth far more than $6.3 million, is a stress test of U.S. crypto policy enforcement, a window into the internal coordination of federal agencies, and a key case to see whether a president who treats cryptocurrency as a political tool can turn that will into actual government action. For global crypto market participants, the significance of the outcome is no less than any macroeconomic indicator.