Criminal Defense Case Results

We were retained in April of 2026 after our client’s Binance account holding over 1.694 Bitcoin (BTC) in a Binance account was frozen at the request of an agent with U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

Before we were retained, the client had spent more than a year emailing the HSI special agent who kept requesting additional information but refused to explain any lawful basis for why the cryptocurrency was frozen.

When we first contact the HSI agency shortly after being retained, he sent the following email:

Good morning, Ms. Sammis.

As this matter is part of an ongoing federal investigation, I am limited in what I can discuss and unfortunately cannot provide substantive details about the status of the case. I also cannot comment on or disclose any information that may have been obtained through the grand jury process.

I am forwarding your contact information and email to AUSA ______. He should be reaching out to you as soon as he’s available.

Respectfully,

[Redacted name of the agent]

Special Agent

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)

SAC Houston / Cyber Investigations
HSI – USAO SDTX Cybercrimes Liaison

On May 18, 2026, we helped the client file a verified claim for court action. We also contact the AUSA. After providing additional information and preparing a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property, the agent and AUSA finally agreed to release the funds.

The HSI agent sent the following email:

Ms. Sammis,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding [name of client redated] and the [frozen bitcoin in Binance Account UID# __________].

I am writing to inform you that Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) has concluded its federal investigation into this matter and is not pursuing further enforcement action. We have notified Binance that our original request for a courtesy freeze was made pending review of certain records and that the federal investigation is now closed.

Any further action regarding the disposition of the assets is now a civil matter between Binance, Coinbase, and the account holders, and will be subject to Binance’s internal policies and procedures.

Please note that this determination by HSI does not preclude any state or local authorities from pursuing their own investigation or enforcement action if they choose to do so.

If you have additional questions regarding the status of the assets, we recommend you contact Binance directly.

Respectfully,

[redacted]

Special Agent

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)

SAC Houston / Cyber Investigations
HSI – USAO SDTX Cybercrimes Liaison

Binance restored the account a few days later.

The United States Secret Service (USSS) (tlrinfo@usss.dhs.gov ) returned 925,121.82 USDT, worth $925,121.82, seized from a Binance Account to Sammis Law Firm. The seizure was part of a forfeiture action related to a criminal case pending in the Eastern District of Texas. We provided information to the USSS and the assigned AUSA that the funds were improperly seized from our clients and should be returned. Additionally, the investigation uncovered problems with the seizure warrant.

We were retained on August 8, 2025, to represent clients with a Binance account worth over $2,170,000 in USDT. The clients retained us after 33 months of requesting information from Binance.com customer service about why their account was frozen only to be repeatedly told the “account under internal review” or “completion expected soon.” After determining the account was frozen at the request of the FBI, we filed a verified claim demanding court action which was signed by our clients. We were then contacted by a DEA Special Agent and the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) assigned to the case. Based on the FBI’s concerns, we helped our clients provide records showing how the transactions occurred, and why they had no knowledge that some small portion of the funds could allegedly be traced to a vast money laundering enterprise. The AUSA indicated they would normally seize the funds, start the forfeiture process, and provide my clients with direct notice of the seizure. Based on the information provided, however, the government decided not to take that action because our clients had explained, in detail, that they were unwittingly involved. The information provided was helpful to the federal investigation and suggested our clients made trades without properly vetting the source of the funds and/or the trade counterparty, but had no criminal intent. For those reasons, on September 10, 2025, the FBI and AUSA decided to withdraw the FBI’s freeze request. Within 2 business days, the account was unfrozen. 

On June 17, 2025, the Honorable J. Layne Smith, Circuit Judge in Wakulla County, FL, ordered the sheriff’s office to return the seized cryptocurrency, including over $500,000 worth of Bitcoin (BTC), to our client. Shortly after the cryptocurrency was seized and our law firm was retained, we filed a demand for an adversarial preliminary hearing (APH) on the Florida Attorney General’s Office as required by the notice of seizure. An all-day adversarial preliminary hearing was held on June 11, 2025. After the hearing, the Court entered an order finding:

At the beginning of the adversarial preliminary hearing, Ms. Sammis handed the Court a copy of the claimant’s motion to dismiss and memorandum of law that she had filed that morning. The Court reviewed the motion prior to the start of the evidentiary hearing. The Court took the motion under advisement and proceeded with an all-day adversarial preliminary hearing.

[The Court found that because the cryptocurrency account was never located in Wakulla County, FL,] per Florida Statute Section 30.15(1), the sheriff’s office lacked the authority to seize property in another county….Wherefore, the Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court orders the petitioner to return the seized account to the claimant.

The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office attempted to seize cryptocurrency from a foreign national and an overseas company, despite not having legal authority to do so. After attorney Leslie Sammis was retained, she forced the sheriff’s office to return everything it seized to her innocent client, plus pay her attorney fees. A detective with the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office reportedly obtained a sealed seizure warrant from Circuit Court Judge Joan Anthony to seize 1.19121 BTC from a business owner’s account with Kraken dba Payward Ventures Inc., by ordering Kraken to transfer that cryptocurrency to a law enforcement-controlled cryptocurrency wallet address maintained by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

It appears this seizure warrant was never assigned a case number or filed with the clerk of court. The order provided, in part:

This court further orders that the Volusia Sheriff’s Office shall forthwith sell the 1.19121 BTC, upon being transferred from the aforementioned Kraken dba Payward Ventures Inc. accounts and be converted into US currency. The US currency is to be returned to the victim after all costs and fees incurred for the transfer.

NOW THEREFORE, the contents of this Warrant and Affidavit on support thereof are placed under seal.

Ordered this 9th day of April, 2025.

Circuit Judge,  in and for Volusia County, Florida

Joan Anthony

It appears that Volusia County also seized cryptocurrency on behalf of authorities in Wisconsin who had a similar seizure warrant for 0.93733 BTC. The seizure warrants in each jurisdiction were strikingly similar, as if one person drafted both documents. After the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office seized the cryptocurrency, it intended to send some of the crypto to the authorities in Wisconsin.  Since Wisconsin had no cryptocurrency wallet that could receive the funds, Volusia County agreed to sell some of the cryptocurrency so it could send a check to the authorities in Wisconsin for $95,030.59 (Ninety-Five Thousand and Thirty Dollars and Fifty-Nine Cents).

After the client hired us, we contacted the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office to explain all the reasons why we thought this seizure was illegal, why our client was actually innocent, and the legal action we intended to take to correct the problem. Within a few weeks, the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office agreed to do three things:

• transfer the 1.19121 BTC seized and held by the authorities in Florida back to our client’s wallet;
• retrieve the U.S. Currency sent to Wisconsin in the amount of $95,030.59 (Ninety-Five Thousand Thirty Dollars and Fifty-Nine Cents) and return that to our client; and
• pay attorney fees to Sammis Law Firm.

No one knows how many other agencies in Florida are seizing cryptocurrency without ever filing an application for probable cause in the clerk of court’s office. Such acts appear to be a blatant violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.

DEA seized over $30,000 worth of U.S. Dollar Tether (USDT) and Bitcoin. After receiving a “notice of seizure,” we filed a verified claim for court action. The AUSA filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court but then agreed to return the property before an answer became due. We entered a memorandum of agreement that ALL of the client’s cryptocurrency would be returned to the client’s wallet within fourteen (14) days. The funds were returned in April of 2023.

Our client’s Binance account was “frozen as it is currently under investigation by law enforcement.” We contacted the Special Agent with the Cyber Group of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) assigned to the case. The AUSA obtained a seizure warrant but agreed to hold it pending negotiations.

Our client was accused of being an intermediary or a broker of funds stolen from victims of a liquidity mining pool scam in California. We requested a copy of the seizure warrant, supporting affidavit, and account records obtained from Binance. We presented several arguments for why the seizure warrant should be withdrawn, including:

• the U.S. District Court had no jurisdiction over the cryptocurrency funds seized for civil asset forfeiture;
• any accusation that Peer to Peer (P2P) trades constitute a “money transmitting business” was unjustified;
• the fraudulently obtained cryptocurrency was only in our client’s wallet for a short time, so the funds later frozen by Binance were not connected; and
• our client qualified as a “bona fide purchaser” who had no cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture.

Shortly thereafter, the AUSA thanked us for providing additional information and indicated that although they believed fraud proceeds were deposited into our client’s wallet, upon further review of our client’s transaction history and the arguments presented, they agreed to withdraw the seizure warrant by seeking the appropriate order from the issuing magistrate and promptly communicating any withdrawal order to Binance.