Crypto Wallet's and their compliancy with law enforcement

[Frabenesh]

Hello.

My query is very simple. If a law enforcement agency approached a wallet provider such as Coinbase, regarding acquiring information about the account holder, do they comply? I would understand why Coinbase would, but what ones specifically do not? If anyone knows, let me know.

Before someone comments it, hardware wallet's such as Trezor's etc are not an option.

Thanks.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Avoid custodial wallets like Coinbase.com or Blockchain that can block your funds and ask for KYC. Obviously if law enforcement agencies approached a wallet service like coinbase which has an AML policy, they will readily provide them with your information. Instead you should focus on noncustodial wallets like electrum or Bitcoin core which is a full node.

[Japinat]

Hello.

My query is very simple. If a law enforcement agency approached a wallet provider such as Coinbase, regarding acquiring information about the account holder, do they comply?

They will because they are regulated, but the regulator would only ask for information from Coinbase if they are looking for a suspected wallet or person that might link with the coinbase. All regulated exchanges are required to comply with the regulatory requirements, basic requirements are KYC as it's necessary for tracing or investigation when fraud or money laundering is committed by a certain person or entity.

I would understand why Coinbase would, but what ones specifically do not? If anyone knows, let me know.

Before someone comments it, hardware wallet's such as Trezor's etc are not an option.

Thanks.

use electrum, it's completely safe based on my experience as long as you don't go to phishing sites to upgrade your wallet and no KYC requirement for using this wallet.

[Fatunad]

Hello.

My query is very simple. If a law enforcement agency approached a wallet provider such as Coinbase, regarding acquiring information about the account holder, do they comply? I would understand why Coinbase would, but what ones specifically do not? If anyone knows, let me know.

Before someone comments it, hardware wallet's such as Trezor's etc are not an option.

Thanks.

When it comes in talks of custodial wallets then they are simply regulated and centralized which means they do abide laws and regulations which they would commonly be following on whats been ordered or on whats been asked. So if they do decide on not to comply or totally ignoring on whats been requested? thats simply means it will be the closure of business as simple as that.

Havent you seen for example on how Binance turns out to be a KYC asking platform now on where back on the days on where you could make out some cashouts
without being verified?

Regulations becomes even more tighter as we do go ahead which is something not really that surprising.

[Quickseller]

My query is very simple. If a law enforcement agency approached a wallet provider such as Coinbase, regarding acquiring information about the account holder, do they comply? I would understand why Coinbase would, but what ones specifically do not? If anyone knows, let me know.

Are you referring to the coinbase wallet? Or someone who has a coinbase custodial account (someone who has an account at coinbase.com)?

The coinbase wallet is a software in which the end user has sole access to the private keys. If law enforcement were to approach coinbase about someone they believe is using the coinbase wallet, coinbase would have no way of knowing which person is even using their wallet. On the other hand, someone with an account at coinbase.com merely has a database entry on coinbase's servers indicating their balance. Someone with a coinbase.com account could potentially be under investigation, and coinbase would have various information about the account holder that could be turned over to law enforcement, given a legal process authorizing them to do so.

[Yogee]

...I would understand why Coinbase would, but what ones specifically do not? If anyone knows, let me know.

Do not search for them since none of the custodial wallet or exchanges will refuse to the request of these authorities. If some platforms tell you they won't then they are just lying just to get your deposits. They may avoid it temporarily but they will eventually give in.

[jossiel]

If they are operating under the jurisdiction of the law enforcer then they have to obey and do and give what they're asking for.

IIRC, there's already this thing that has happened and Coinbase has turned over or giving access to the authority if they're going to ask for their customers info.

[hatshepsut93]

Coinbase is not a wallet, it's an exchange service. It was not created to store your crypto, so it's a big misconception to think that it is an option equal to software or hardware wallets.

To answer your question, I think it depends on which law enforcement agency asks them. If it's FBI, they will be much more likely to answer than if it was, let's say Belarusian police.

Before someone comments it, hardware wallet's such as Trezor's etc are not an option.

Thanks.

Your account being frozen at demand from law enforcement is just one of the risks of centralized exchanges. They can get hacked, your online machine can get hacked, you can become a victim of phishing and so on.

[mk4]

If you're talking about the Coinbase exchange, then they will comply even if they don't want to. If you're talking about Coinbase the non-custodial wallet, it's going to depend on how much data they're collecting through the software, and how much data they end up having about a certain person.

As for hardware wallet manufacturers, the only thing law enforcement can do is to ask for the complete list of their customers(full names, addresses, contact numbers, etc). Which in itself isn't a good thing either; though a lot less worse than exchanges since there's no way for them to know how much crypto you have.

[Quickseller]

As for hardware wallet manufacturers, the only thing law enforcement can do is to ask for the complete list of their customers(full names, addresses, contact numbers, etc). Which in itself isn't a good thing either; though a lot less worse than exchanges since there's no way for them to know how much crypto you have.

A list of customers is going to do very little for law enforcement because the overwhelming majority of crypto users are law abiding, even if they tend to go to great lengths to maintain their privacy.

IMO, someone buying a HW wallet is insufficient evidence to suggest that someone has committed a crime and as such any warrant based on this will be invalid.

[adzino]

Hello.

My query is very simple. If a law enforcement agency approached a wallet provider such as Coinbase, regarding acquiring information about the account holder, do they comply? I would understand why Coinbase would, but what ones specifically do not? If anyone knows, let me know.

Before someone comments it, hardware wallet's such as Trezor's etc are not an option.

Thanks.

Yes, they will hand over the information and will comply with the law enforcement agencies. They are allowed to provide their services to different countries only if they follow the rules of their country. And one of the rules is to collect data of the users and allow the government/law enforcement agencies to use them when needed.
The only way to avoid this is to use your own non custodial wallet where you own the keys of your wallet. All other custodial wallet services might at one point make you go through KYC or else they will just keep your funds frozen.

[mk4]

A list of customers is going to do very little for law enforcement because the overwhelming majority of crypto users are law abiding, even if they tend to go to great lengths to maintain their privacy.

IMO, someone buying a HW wallet is insufficient evidence to suggest that someone has committed a crime and as such any warrant based on this will be invalid.

Oh sure; there's a really low likeliness of the data being used by law enforcement in a bad way due to lack of data. But it doesn't change the fact that HW sellers are a honeypot for data of people that are at least slightly interested in cryptocurrencies.

[Quickseller]

A list of customers is going to do very little for law enforcement because the overwhelming majority of crypto users are law abiding, even if they tend to go to great lengths to maintain their privacy.

IMO, someone buying a HW wallet is insufficient evidence to suggest that someone has committed a crime and as such any warrant based on this will be invalid.

Oh sure; there's a really low likeliness of the data being used by law enforcement in a bad way due to lack of data. But it doesn't change the fact that HW sellers are a honeypot for data of people that are at least slightly interested in cryptocurrencies.

Right, it might serve as a honeypot for crypto users in locations that are authoritarian, such as China. On the other hand, HW suppliers are less likely to be subject to the authority of authoritarian governments.

To the extent that you believe your government will not become authoritarian, I think buying a HW wallet should be safe.

[dothebeats]

I think all of them would comply if the law enforcement has the necessary papers to conduct investigation, otherwise they won't budge. Also, you have to have committed a crime involving huge sums of money for the law enforcement to refer to exchanges on your trading history and other such related information.

Personally, I would limit my activities on exchanges and try to seek P2P traders near me whenever I can. Or, if you know that you aren't breaking any laws, why be paranoid anyway? Just go the hardware wallet route and store your own keys.

[mk4]

Right, it might serve as a honeypot for crypto users in locations that are authoritarian, such as China. On the other hand, HW suppliers are less likely to be subject to the authority of authoritarian governments.

To the extent that you believe your government will not become authoritarian, I think buying a HW wallet should be safe.

Yeap. And if governments would actually want a list of crypto users, just grabbing a list from centralized exchanges like Coinbase is a lot more of a no-brainer for them; since unfortunately only a small minority use HW wallets(and non-custodial wallets in general) to start with.

[joniboini]

Is there a reason why hw is not an option though? Because you can't directly trade on it? If that's the case, I suggest you read more about exchanges and wallets so that you can understand the risk of using a custodial wallet as mentioned above. I'd rather pay for a hundred bucks to buy a hw than use a custodial wallet as my cold wallet. As for how to sell/buy some coins, that's another problem that you can solve through various means.

[suzanne5223]

Hello.

My query is very simple. If a law enforcement agency approached a wallet provider such as Coinbase, regarding acquiring information about the account holder, do they comply?

Coinbase is the worse exchange and wallet provider when it comes to KYC issues and giving their customers private information to the law enforcement agency and this is the reason why the US sec credit them above other exchange sites.

Coinbase is not a wallet, it's an exchange service.

Yes, Coinbase is an exchange site but they created a custodial wallet that functions like a Trust wallet, and the only difference between the two wallets is that trust wallets are non-custodial.

[bL4nkcode]

Is there a reason why hw is not an option though? Because you can't directly trade on it?

More like it needs to bought first?

Anyway, to op, there are lots of wallets available (mostly mentioned already above) to use if your main concern is the intervention of the authority. It just a matter of your understanding between wallets and exchanges.

Coinbase is not a wallet, it's an exchange service.

Yes, Coinbase is an exchange site but they created a custodial wallet that functions like a Trust wallet, and the only difference between the two wallets is that trust wallets are non-custodial.

There's no difference between custodial wallet to CEX if in question is user's privacy and the involvement of the law which is the main issue of OP.

[Frabenesh]

Thanks to all those who replied to the thread, the information is very useful to me.

Regards,
Anon.

[kryptqnick]

Thanks to all those who replied to the thread, the information is very useful to me.

Regards,
Anon.

Yeah, they'll comply, but it's not limited to them. I believe most reputable exchanges that require KYC will do the same thing upon request from the law enforcement because that's what complying with anti-money laundering regulation means. So storing Bitcoin is one thing, and you can store it safely, but trading with it or selling it for fiat can prove to be way trickier in terms of keeping privacy because reputable exchanges usually ask for IDs this way, and there's no reason to believe they won't share this information once they're asked to do this.