One of the most significant white-collar crime trials in recent years has begun at the Leipzig Regional Court. At its heart is the former streaming portal movie2k – and a Bitcoin fortune worth billions. Specifically, the Free State of Saxony is at stake with approximately €2.64 billion, derived from the sale of seized Bitcoins. The highly sensitive legal and political question is: Can the state retain this money permanently – or does it ultimately belong to the defendants or potential victims?
The trial combines classic white-collar crime charges with the specific characteristics of digital assets. It thus exemplifies a new generation of criminal proceedings in which cryptocurrencies, international payment flows, and complex asset transfers play a central role.
Background of the procedure
The defendants are alleged to have operated the illegal streaming portal movie2k.com or movie2k.to for years. Until its shutdown in 2013, the platform was considered one of the largest German-language piracy portals. Users were given access to films and series without the consent of the copyright holders. The business model was allegedly financed through advertising revenue and payments related to premium access.
The public prosecutor's office accuses the defendants of, in particular, numerous cases of commercial money laundering, serious tax evasion, and other financial crimes. Initially, hundreds of thousands of copyright infringements were also alleged. However, according to the court's preliminary assessment, these are largely time-barred and therefore can no longer be prosecuted.
It is precisely this statute of limitations that makes the proceedings particularly interesting from a legal perspective. Even if certain crimes can no longer be prosecuted, this does not automatically mean that the resulting financial gains remain untouched. This is exactly where the instrument of asset forfeiture comes into play, which forms a central focus of the current trial.
Bitcoin as a central element of the indictment
According to the investigation, significant revenues from the operation of the platform are said to have been generated in Cryptocurrencies, The alleged main defendant is said to have invested in, in particular, Bitcoin. He is alleged to have acquired a total of approximately 136,000 Bitcoins. This investment decision – presumably made when the Bitcoin price was still relatively low – led to an enormous increase in value over the years.
Following his arrest in 2023, the defendant surrendered a significant portion of his holdings to the investigating authorities. Some of these Bitcoins were sold through a so-called emergency sale. Such sales are typically undertaken due to the significant price fluctuations of cryptocurrencies. The state aims to prevent seized assets from losing substantial value due to market fluctuations.
Through this sale, the Free State of Saxony received approximately €2.64 billion. This money is currently held in escrow at the Bundesbank and is secured until the proceedings are legally concluded. Legally speaking, this is not freely available budgetary capital, but rather a provisionally secured sum, the final allocation of which will be decided by the court.
The key legal question: asset confiscation
The focus is on the application of the provisions for the confiscation of proceeds of crime under Sections 73 et seq. of the German Criminal Code (StGB). These regulations enable the state to confiscate assets obtained through unlawful acts. This is not about punishment in the classical sense, but rather about the recovery of unlawfully obtained advantages.
For confiscation to be lawful, the court must establish that the assets originate from specific criminal offenses and are attributable to the defendants. The mere existence of assets is insufficient; rather, a connection must exist between the crime and the increase in assets. Particularly in the case of cryptocurrencies that have been held for years and partially resold, proving this connection presents considerable practical and legal challenges.
Another aspect to consider is the potential claims of those who have suffered losses. If rights holders can prove that they have incurred financial damages due to illegal streaming, these losses can be taken into account as part of asset recovery. Only after such claims have been satisfied could any remaining amount be paid to the Free State of Saxony.
However, should insufficient criminal evidence be obtained or confiscation fail for other reasons, repayment of the seized funds to the defendants would, in principle, be considered. The implications of this decision are enormous – not only financially, but also with regard to public confidence in the due process of dealing with confiscated assets.
Significance for the handling of cryptocurrencies in criminal law
This process has significant implications for the future handling of digital assets. Cryptocurrencies enable fast, cross-border transactions and, depending on their structure, can contribute to obscuring payment flows. At the same time, transactions leave permanent traces on the blockchain, which law enforcement agencies with the appropriate technical expertise can analyze.
This case demonstrates that digital assets are not exempt from criminal prosecution. Existing asset forfeiture instruments are fundamentally technology-neutral. They therefore encompass not only traditional bank deposits or cash, but also cryptocurrencies.
At the same time, the process raises practical questions: How does the state deal with the volatility of such assets? When is an emergency sale necessary? And how is it ensured that neither the accused nor potential victims are disadvantaged by hasty decisions?
Outlook and possible consequences
The court has initially scheduled several trial days until mid-May. However, given the scope of the charges, the complex asset structures, and the economic dimension of the proceedings, a longer duration is to be expected. Potential motions for evidence, expert opinions, and questions regarding international legal assistance could also significantly prolong the trial.
Regardless of the outcome, the "movie2k" trial will set precedents. It concerns not only the specific question of whether Saxony is allowed to collect billions. It touches upon fundamental issues of modern criminal law: the effective fight against digital economic crime, the rule-of-law-compliant handling of enormous assets, and the role of cryptocurrencies in an increasingly globalized financial system.
This makes the case far more than a spectacular isolated incident. It sets a precedent for the criminal prosecution of digital assets – with potential repercussions far beyond Saxony.