- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
A Nova Scotia judge has ordered a laptop holding a Bitcoin wallet returned to the family of convicted killer William Sandeson, ruling on November 3, 2026, that prosecutors failed to prove the cryptocurrency was linked to the 2015 murder of Taylor Samson or the drug deal that preceded it.
The wallet’s value is disputed, with a lawyer for Samson’s family estimating it at more than C$200,000, and the amount of Bitcoin has not been established.
The latest development in the Sandeson murder case followed a legal application by Sandeson seeking the return of personal belongings confiscated when police searched his Halifax apartment in 2015.
Among the seized possessions was a laptop containing access to a Bitcoin wallet. Sandeson appeared virtually during the hearing in Halifax, where the court considered whether the authorities had sufficient grounds to continue holding the property.
The Crown argued that the cryptocurrency could have been connected to the cannabis transaction involving Samson or represented proceeds of criminal activity. However, Justice Bodurtha concluded that the prosecution had not established the necessary connection.
According to Global News, the judge described the proposed involvement of Bitcoin in the transaction as hypothetical, emphasizing that prosecutors had not demonstrated that Sandeson actually intended to use the cryptocurrency during the deal.
“The potential use of the cryptocurrency as part of the drug transaction is hypothetical,” Bodurtha said.
He also pointed out that the Crown had not presented evidence showing that Bitcoin was actually used in connection with the killing.
In another part of his ruling, the judge stated that prosecutors had failed to establish that the cryptocurrency was used in the drug transaction, represented proceeds of crime or was otherwise connected to illegal activity.
The distinction was important because the prosecution needed to demonstrate a direct evidentiary basis for retaining the asset. The fact that the laptop belonged to someone convicted of murder was not, on its own, enough to establish that the Bitcoin was criminal property.
The court nevertheless refused to return everything Sandeson requested. Approximately C$5,000 in cash recovered from his apartment was classified as offence-related property and will remain with the authorities.
The contrasting decisions demonstrate how the court assessed each seized asset according to the available evidence rather than treating all possessions as automatically connected to the offence.
The financial implications of the ruling have attracted considerable attention, particularly because of Bitcoin’s substantial price appreciation over the years.
When Sandeson was arrested in August 2015, he reportedly estimated that the wallet contained Bitcoin worth between C$8,000 and C$10,000. At the time, the cryptocurrency was trading at considerably lower prices than in subsequent market cycles.
However, the potential value of the holdings has increased dramatically. James Goodwin, a lawyer representing Samson’s family in a separate wrongful death lawsuit, previously indicated that the Bitcoin could be worth more than C$200,000.
The exact quantity of Bitcoin stored in the wallet has not been publicly established in the latest reporting. Consequently, the C$200,000 figure should be treated as an estimate rather than a confirmed valuation.
The Sandeson murder case has also raised questions about who may ultimately benefit financially from the recovered cryptocurrency.
Samson’s family has pursued a separate civil claim against Sandeson, making the ownership and potential value of the digital assets particularly relevant to the wider dispute. The Bitcoin wallet previously became a central issue in those proceedings because of the possibility that its value could contribute to any financial recovery awarded to the victim’s relatives.
Nevertheless, the latest criminal-property ruling addresses a different legal question. It determines whether the Crown established sufficient grounds to retain the seized laptop and its associated cryptocurrency, rather than deciding the outcome of the wrongful death lawsuit.
The distinction matters because the return of the laptop does not automatically settle any outstanding financial claims involving Sandeson’s assets.
It also highlights a growing challenge for legal systems dealing with cryptocurrency: digital assets can appreciate considerably while remaining inaccessible because of legal restrictions, custody disputes or the loss of private keys.
Unlike traditional bank accounts, Bitcoin wallets can depend on cryptographic credentials stored on physical devices or backed up elsewhere. Recovering the laptop could therefore be significant to the family, although the court’s order does not independently establish that the wallet remains accessible or that its full contents can be recovered.
The Sandeson murder case dates back to August 15, 2015, when Sandeson was 23 years old and preparing to begin medical school at Dalhousie University in Halifax.
According to prosecutors, he arranged for Taylor Samson, a 22-year-old fellow university student, to visit his apartment for a cannabis transaction reportedly valued at C$40,000.
The prosecution’s account was that Sandeson shot Samson during the meeting, took the cannabis and money, and subsequently disposed of the victim’s body in a river connected to the Bay of Fundy. Samson’s remains have never been recovered.
The investigation and subsequent trials became major developments in Nova Scotia’s criminal justice system.
Sandeson was initially convicted of first-degree murder in 2017. However, an appeal court overturned that conviction in 2020, paving the way for a second trial.
At the 2023 retrial, Sandeson acknowledged shooting Samson but maintained that he had acted in self-defence. The jury rejected that defence and found him guilty of second-degree murder.
The conviction resulted in an automatic life sentence. Sandeson is currently serving his sentence in Quebec and is eligible for parole in 2030.
The unresolved disappearance of Samson’s remains has continued to draw attention to the case, while the separate financial proceedings have introduced another complicated dimension involving cryptocurrency ownership and recovery.
Beyond the immediate financial implications, the Sandeson murder case offers an important example of how courts approach digital assets seized during criminal investigations.
Cryptocurrency does not automatically become proceeds of crime simply because it belongs to someone convicted of an offence. Prosecutors must still establish the necessary connection between the asset and the alleged criminal activity.
For the cryptocurrency industry, the decision also underscores the importance of distinguishing between asset ownership, criminal proceeds and evidence seized during investigations.
The Sandeson murder case is not simply a dispute over an appreciating Bitcoin investment. It demonstrates how digital assets can remain at the centre of complicated legal battles long after the events that led to their seizure.
Although the laptop is now expected to return to Sandeson’s family, questions surrounding the wallet’s actual value and the separate civil proceedings remain significant.
Copyright © 2025 - The Bit Gazette.
