Asset class
Crypto accounts in Luxembourg
A crypto holding routed through Luxembourg is rarely a claim against a person. It is a claim against a book entry, held by a platform or custodian, that records what is owed. What can be recovered turns on who controls that entry and how the platform's arrangement characterises it in law, not on the coin itself. Whether the platform holds a licence, an exemption, or nothing at all changes which register applies and who can be made to move the entry.
Register and custody layer
Luxembourg intermediaries typically hold client crypto assets on an internal ledger rather than in the client's own name. Whether that ledger creates a proprietary claim to specific coins or only a contractual claim against the intermediary depends on the account terms and how the platform's arrangement classifies custody. A supervised entity keeps records that differ from an unregulated technology company routing assets through a foreign sub-custodian. The register layer that matters is the one showing whose name sits above the client's entry, and whether that entry was segregated from the platform's own balance sheet before performance was refused. This is the same question that runs across the broader crypto and platform account cluster, not something specific to one coin or one platform.
The document rarely handed over
Investors rarely receive the custody statement showing where their crypto actually sat on the platform's own books, or the agreement between the platform and any sub-custodian holding the underlying keys. Without that document, it is not possible to establish whether the assets were segregated from the platform's operating funds at the point performance was refused. Where the underlying account records or agreements were issued outside Luxembourg, they generally need to be authenticated before they can be relied on in a Luxembourg proceeding; Luxembourg has applied the Apostille Convention since 1979, which governs how a foreign document is authenticated for that purpose. A platform that resists producing the custody statement on request is itself a fact worth recording, not a reason to stop asking.
What belongs in a pre-deal report
A pre-deal or pre-dispute report on a Luxembourg crypto holding should establish: which entity holds the account and under what arrangement; whether client assets are contractually and operationally segregated from the platform's own holdings; the custody chain down to whichever entity actually holds the private keys; and what documentation exists showing the client's entry on the platform's ledger at the relevant date. It should also record whether any of that documentation originates outside Luxembourg and what authentication step it needs before it can be used.
A paid initial assessment on a Luxembourg crypto holding does not estimate what a court will award. It reviews the account terms, the custody chain, and the documents already in the client's possession, and states which of the gaps above can be closed before anything is filed. That review sits within the wider platform and frozen account work carried out across jurisdictions.