Asset class
Crypto accounts in Netherlands
Crypto held through a Dutch platform or wallet provider is not, by default, a property right in the coins themselves. It is a contractual claim against whoever controls the private keys or the ledger entry naming the investor. What that claim is worth, and against whom it runs, depends on the register and custody layer the platform actually used, not on what the marketing material called the product. See how this asset class is treated more broadly in the crypto and platform accounts overview.
Register and custody layer
Three questions decide what an investor holds: who controlled the private keys at the relevant time, whether the platform segregated client assets from its own balance sheet, and which entity was named as counterparty in the account terms. A claim against an exchange that pooled client and proprietary assets sits differently from a claim against a custodian holding segregated wallets. The Dutch entity operating the platform may itself be a claimant against a further custodian abroad, adding a layer the investor never sees. Which body has authority over disputes at that layer is not fixed in advance; {authority}.
The document rarely handed over
Investors are rarely given the custody statement showing whether their coins sat in a segregated wallet or a commingled one. Without it, a claim against the platform cannot be distinguished from a claim shared with every other user in an insolvency. Where the account agreement or a supporting affidavit was signed outside the Netherlands, it also needs to be usable in a Dutch file. The Netherlands applies the Apostille Convention, in force there since 8 October 1965, subject to a reservation and several extensions across the Kingdom [N410]. A document executed abroad without the correct legalisation step can be challenged on that basis alone, separately from what it says. The related question of who the platform's real counterparty was is set out in this piece on identifying the real counterparty.
What belongs in a pre-deal report
A 6D report on a Dutch crypto account should be built from items that can be checked, not assumed:
- The custody statement covering the period from deposit to the point payouts stopped, showing segregated or pooled holding.
- Proof of which entity was named as counterparty in the account terms, and its place of registration.
- Confirmation that any document signed abroad carries the correct apostille or legalisation chain for use in the Netherlands [N410].
- The platform's terms of service as they stood at the date of investment, not the current version.
- A transaction ledger from subscription through the first missed withdrawal.
Most of this paperwork exists but is not sent unprompted. A paid preliminary assessment establishes which of these documents are missing, which are recoverable, and how the custody structure actually sits before anything is filed or sent to the platform. That review is also where related exposure, such as a frozen platform account or a paper gap of the kind described in this note on missing paperwork, gets checked against the same file.