Mitchell A. Flagg

The applicant, a cyber-insurer, sought relief from forfeiture under s. 462.42 of the Criminal Code to recover funds paid out to two insured victims of a ransomware attack.

The offender's cryptocurrency had been seized and forfeited.

The court held that the insurer had a valid interest in the forfeited property limited to the amount of Bitcoin paid as ransom by one of the victims, which had been erroneously omitted from the sentencing restitution order.

The court dismissed the claim for further restitution and for relief from forfeiture regarding other insurance payouts, such as consultation fees and lost profits, finding they did not constitute an interest in the specific forfeited property.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to vary his house arrest conditions to allow a work exception.

He argued that his inability to afford his counsel of choice and his desire to work to pay for counsel constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed plan lacked adequate surety supervision and that the applicant's financial difficulties regarding his counsel of choice did not amount to a material change affecting the secondary ground concerns that justified the original strict conditions.