Justice John Bodurtha of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ordered the return of a laptop containing a Bitcoin wallet to William Sandeson on November 3, 2026. Despite Sandeson serving a life sentence for second-degree murder, the court ruled that prosecutors failed to prove the cryptocurrency was linked to criminal activity or used in the underlying drug transaction.
While the court allowed the return of the digital wallet, it withheld C$5,000 in cash found in Sandeson’s apartment, classifying it as offense-related property.
Strategic Implications of the Bodurtha Ruling
- Evidentiary Thresholds: The ruling reinforces that “hypothetical” connections between cryptocurrency and criminal proceeds are insufficient for state seizure under Canadian law.
The failure to link digital assets to the 2015 crime
The legal battle centered on whether the Bitcoin held in the seized laptop constituted proceeds of crime. During the hearing in Halifax, the Crown—the Canadian prosecution—offered no evidence that the cryptocurrency was actually utilized in the drug transaction that preceded the murder of Taylor Samson.
Justice Bodurtha noted that any connection between the Bitcoin and the crime remained purely speculative. “The potential use of the cryptocurrency as part of the drug transaction is hypothetical,” Bodurtha stated, adding that the prosecution “cites no evidence of actual dealing with the bitcoin in connection with the murder.”
The ruling suggests that mere possession of crypto at the time of an arrest does not grant the state automatic ownership if the asset’s utility in the crime remains unproven.
CANADIAN JUDGE ORDERS BITCOIN WALLET RETURNED TO CONVICTED KILLER'S FAMILY William Sandeson is serving life for the 2015 murder of student Taylor Samson during a drug deal. Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice John Bodurtha ruled the Crown failed to prove the bitcoin was tainted,… pic.twitter.com/KvwL1RYUOV
A timeline of convictions and legal shifts
The return of the wallet follows a complex judicial history for Sandeson, who was a Dalhousie University student at the time of the 2015 incident. The case has moved through multiple stages of the Canadian legal system, impacting both the criminal record and the availability of assets.
| Date | Legal Event/Status | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| June 2015 | Initial Arrest | Sandeson arrested following the death of Taylor Samson. |
| June 2017 | First Trial Verdict | Convicted of first-degree murder. |
| June 2020 | Appeals Court Ruling | First-degree murder verdict overturned; new trial ordered. |
| 2023 | Second Trial Verdict | Convicted of second-degree murder; life sentence imposed. |
Sandeson’s second conviction in 2023 resulted in a life sentence with parole eligibility set at 15 years. He is currently serving this sentence in Quebec. The original incident involved an attempt to sell 18 kilograms of cannabis to Samson, an event that turned fatal when Sandeson shot the victim.
Civil litigation and the battle for compensation
The family of Taylor Samson, led by mother Linda Boutilier and brother Connor Samson, has sought to preserve the Bitcoin to ensure funds are available for a potential wrongful death settlement.
The valuation of the Bitcoin has fluctuated significantly throughout the litigation. In October 2022, Sandeson estimated the holdings were worth between C$8,000 and C$10,000. However, by February 2023, legal counsel for the Samson family suggested the value could exceed C$200,000.
The family’s lawyer, James Goodwin, previously obtained a temporary court order in December 2022 to block the return of the laptop. This injunction was intended to secure the assets as potential compensation for damages.
Precedents in cryptocurrency asset freezing
The central question remaining is whether the Samson family can successfully navigate the civil litigation to keep the assets available for compensation, or if the laptop’s transfer to Sandeson’s family renders the Bitcoin effectively unreachable.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
