A Nova Scotia judge has ordered that a laptop holding a Bitcoin wallet be returned to the family of William Sandeson, who is serving a life sentence for the 2015 murder of Dalhousie University student Taylor Samson. Per Decrypt's report, which relays Global News, Justice John Bodurtha found the Crown had not shown the cryptocurrency was connected to the killing.
This is a serious case with a victim whose remains have never been found, and the ruling is narrow. It is also a useful read for anyone building agents that hold or move keys, because the decision turned on evidence, not on anything about the technology.
What the court actually decided
According to Decrypt, Sandeson filed a motion in April seeking the return of personal items seized from his apartment after his 2015 arrest. Justice Bodurtha ruled that the Crown had not met its burden to show the Bitcoin was used in the drug transaction at the center of the case, was proceeds of crime, or was otherwise tainted by criminality. He called the possibility that it was used in the deal "hypothetical."
The judge did not treat everything the same way. About C$5,000 in cash seized from the apartment was found to be "offence-related property" and will not be returned. Same apartment, same seizure, different outcome. The difference was what could be tied to the offence.
The article does not say how much Bitcoin the wallet holds. Sandeson says it was worth roughly C$8,000 to C$10,000. A lawyer for Samson's family, in a separate wrongful death lawsuit centered on the cryptocurrency, says it could now be worth more than C$200,000. Those are claims from the parties, and Decrypt reports them as such.
The case, briefly
Per Decrypt, prosecutors said at the 2023 trial that Sandeson arranged for Samson to come to his apartment on August 15, 2015, to sell cannabis Sandeson had arranged to buy for C$40,000. Sandeson was convicted of first-degree murder in 2017, and an appeals court overturned that verdict in 2020. At a second trial in 2023 he admitted to the shooting but claimed self-defense, and a jury convicted him of second-degree murder, which carries an automatic life sentence. He will be eligible for parole in 2030.
The article does not say whether the Crown will appeal or when the laptop would be returned. The separate wrongful death suit is still a distinct dispute.
The takeaway for builders: possession is not provenance
There is a lazy idea that crypto is either untraceable or perfectly traceable. This ruling shows neither. A public ledger records that coins moved. It does not, on its own, tell a court why they moved or what they were for. Someone has to build that chain of evidence and carry the burden of proving it.
If you build agents that hold funds, the same gap shows up in your own stack:
- ▸Control is not context. A wallet address shows who holds a key. It does not record the purpose of a payment unless you record it.
- ▸Logs are your evidence. An agent that can spend should leave a readable trail: which instruction, which tool call, which counterparty, which limit applied.
- ▸Seizure and custody are real. Keys sit on devices, and devices can be taken. Where a key lives and who can reach it is a design decision, not an afterthought.
- ▸Policy beats prose. Spend limits and allow-lists are checkable. A promise that an agent "only does good things" is not.
None of this is legal advice, and nothing here says what any particular wallet contains or how any other court would rule. It is a reminder that onchain activity still needs documentation to mean something off the chain.
What to watch
- ▸An appeal. The article does not say whether the Crown will challenge the ruling.
- ▸The wrongful death suit. It is separate from this motion, and its outcome is not decided by it.
- ▸How courts handle digital assets generally. Cases like this set practical expectations for what must be shown before crypto is held or forfeited.
Building an agent that touches funds? Map the wallet, payment rail and logging pieces before you write the prompt. Start at satohub.ai/build.