After a family member passes away, while sorting through their belongings, you may find a hardware wallet, a piece of paper with a seed phrase written on it, or a mobile phone still logged into an overseas exchange account. The family knows these assets may be of considerable value, but does not know where to begin:
Can virtual currency be inherited as part of an estate? If there is a death certificate and a notarized certificate of inheritance, will the exchange cooperate? If the private key has already been found, can the coins simply be transferred out? If there are other heirs, who has the right to decide where these assets go?
Traditional estates usually have relatively mature registration and inquiry systems; for example, bank deposits can be verified by contacting the bank, and real property ownership can be verified through real estate registration. Virtual currency, however, is different: assets may be scattered across multiple exchanges, non-custodial wallets, or on-chain protocols. Some assets have no centralized institution that can assist with inheritance procedures, and even if the heirs lawfully enjoy the corresponding property rights and interests, they may be unable to actually control the assets due to the lack of a private key, seed phrase, or multi-signature authority.
Therefore, when handling the inheritance of digital assets, three issues must first be distinguished:whether these assets legally constitute the decedent's estate, how the heirs can prove their rights, and, after obtaining legal inheritance status, whether they have the conditions to actually control and dispose of the assets.
These three issues are interrelated, but none can substitute for another.
I. Can virtual currency be inherited? The first question is whether it constitutes lawful personal property
When it comes to the inheritance of virtual currency, two diametrically opposed understandings most easily arise. One holds that virtual currency has economic value and therefore can of course be inherited; the other holds that because China prohibits virtual-currency-related trading business, family members cannot assert any inheritance rights or interests. Both judgments are overly simplistic.
Article 1122 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China providesthat an estate is the lawful personal property left by a natural person upon death, except for property that may not be inherited in accordance with the law or by its nature.Article 127 further providesthat where the law contains provisions on the protection of data and online virtual property, those provisions shall be followed. This means that a digital form of existence does not of itself exclude property rights and interests, but it also cannot be concluded merely from the fact that something is "online virtual property" that all virtual currency may be inherited, traded, or converted into cash without restriction.
Particular attention should be paid to the notice issued in February 2026,the Notice on Further Preventing and Addressing Risks Relating to Virtual Currencies and Other Matters (Yin Fa [2026] No. 42).This document once again makes clear that virtual currencies such as Bitcoin, Ether and Tether do not have legal-tender status and should not and cannot be circulated or used in the market as currency, and it sets out prohibitive provisions on illegal financial activities such as the exchange between domestic fiat currency and virtual currencies and exchanges among virtual currencies. At the same time, the document makes clear that where an individual's investment in virtual currencies and other related products violates public order and good morals, the relevant civil juristic act is void, and any losses arising therefrom are borne by the individual.
Therefore, under the legal framework of mainland China, the issue of digital asset inheritance and the issue of regulation of virtual currency trading activities should be examined separately, but they cannot be handled in isolation from each other.
For example, where the deceased held a certain type of digital asset for a long period during his or her lifetime and can provide purchase records, holding records and wallet control information, there may be a fundamental difference in the attribution of rights and legal characterization between such assets and digital assets that the deceased held, transferred or controlled on behalf of others in connection with suspected illegal fund-related business. Even if the deceased controlled the private keys of a certain wallet, it cannot be directly presumed on that basis that all assets in the wallet belong to his or her personal estate.
For family members, what truly needs to be confirmed is not only whether there are coins in the wallet, but also how these assets were acquired, who actually enjoys the rights and interests therein, whether third-party rights exist, and whether the relevant rights and interests can be recognized as estate under the applicable law.
II. With inheritance certificates, why may it still not be possible to withdraw the coins?
This is the most noteworthy difference between digital asset inheritance and traditional property inheritance.
Traditional financial accounts are usually managed by institutions such as banks and securities companies. After obtaining valid legal documents, heirs may apply for inquiries, transfers or other procedures in accordance with the requirements of the relevant institutions. However, no such account manager exists for non-custodial wallets, and the blockchain network will not automatically identify a person's heirs and transfer the assets to new addresses merely because that person has died.
Therefore, legal inheritance rights and technical ability to control assets are two different mechanisms.
Suppose the deceased held BTC in a hardware wallet during his or her lifetime, and the family members found the device but did not know the unlock password and did not find the mnemonic phrase. Even if the family members have reached agreement on the shares of inheritance, or even obtained effective legal documents, this does not mean that the signing authority of the wallet can be restored. For non-custodial wallets that adopt secure cryptographic mechanisms, if the necessary keys or recovery conditions truly cannot be obtained, the assets may remain at the original address for a long period and the transfer cannot be completed.
Conversely, if a family member discovers the mnemonic phrase while sorting through the deceased's belongings and is technically able to control the wallet, this does not mean that he or she may, without the consent of the other heirs, directly transfer all digital assets to a personal account. The mnemonic phrase addresses the ability to sign and transfer, and does not directly answer who the ultimate rights holder is, whether marital community property exists, what the shares of the other heirs are, and whether the estate still needs to be used to pay debts that should be borne in accordance with law.
This also determines that digital asset inheritance cannot rely solely on traditional inheritance procedures, and even less can it rely solely on technical personnel to recover wallets. Confirmation of legal ownership and verification of technical control conditions often need to be pursued simultaneously.
III. Where the assets are held determines how the inheritance procedures should be handled
The inheritance path for digital assets depends first on who holds the assets. This directly affects the parties the heirs need to contact, the materials to be prepared, and whether the assets can ultimately be obtained in practice.
First scenario: the assets are held on a centralized exchange.
If the decedent held assets such as BTC, ETH or USDT in an account with an overseas exchange during his or her lifetime, the heirs usually need to apply through the estate processing procedures provided by the platform, rather than directly logging in with the deceased's account and password to sell or transfer the assets.
At present, some major trading platforms already provide relatively clear inheritance application channels. For example, Binance's official help center offers an "Inheritance Appeal" function, through which applicants may submit the deceased's account information and valid inheritance documents, and the platform will handle the matter in accordance with applicable law, the terms of service and the results of its review. Coinbase's official process requires applicants to provide a death certificate, probate or estate administration authorization documents, identity documents, and asset handling instructions signed by a person with authority.
These public rules at least show one thing: some overseas trading platforms recognize that an inheritance relationship requiring handling exists after the death of a digital asset holder, but the fact that a platform provides an inheritance application channel does not mean that all applicants can directly collect the assets.
The platform still needs to confirm account ownership, the applicant's legal qualifications, the applicable jurisdiction, the status of the assets and compliance requirements. If the account involves a freeze, liabilities, abnormal transactions or other ownership disputes, the processing procedures may become further complicated. In addition, the same platform entity in different countries and regions may also apply different documentation and operational requirements, and heirs cannot simply copy the successful experience of users in other regions.
Second scenario: the assets are held in a self-custodied non-custodial wallet.
If the decedent used a hardware wallet, mobile wallet or other non-custodial wallet, the situation is entirely different. Trading platforms generally cannot recover private keys on behalf of the heirs, and wallet software developers do not necessarily possess any authority capable of assisting in transferring the assets.
At this point, two types of information need to be distinguished: a wallet address can help family members identify on-chain holdings and verify historical transactions, but actually completing the transfer of assets usually requires the corresponding private key, mnemonic phrase or other signing conditions. Even if a blockchain explorer shows that a certain address holds a large amount of BTC, the address alone cannot prove that it necessarily belongs to the decedent, and it certainly cannot be used to directly obtain control on that basis.
For such assets, lawyers need to work with technical personnel to verify the source of the wallet, the history of use of the address, and purchase and transfer records, and to assess the existing recovery conditions under lawful authorization. Technical work should be premised on preserving evidence and asset security, and rash operations should be avoided while the rights relationship has not yet been clarified.
Third scenario: the assets are held in a multisignature wallet, an on-chain protocol, or another complex control structure.
Some Web3 practitioners do not hold assets individually; instead, they use multisignature wallets to manage investments, project treasuries, or company funds. Suppose a wallet requires the joint authorization of two out of three signatories to transfer funds, and one of the holders dies; this does not necessarily mean the assets cannot be transferred. However, if that person's signing authority is irreplaceable and the remaining number of signatures cannot meet the threshold, technical handling may face difficulties.
More importantly, the assets in a multisignature wallet do not necessarily belong to any individual signatory's personal property. A signatory may merely be a company finance officer, a DAO management member, or a custodian; possessing signing authority does not mean that the individual enjoys the corresponding asset rights and interests.
Therefore, when encountering such a wallet, it is first necessary to verify the actual ownership of the assets, the signing rules, the relevant agreements, and the members' authority, and only then to discuss whether the deceased left behind inheritable property rights and interests, or merely a management authority that cannot be directly disposed of as part of the personal estate.
IV. If there are multiple heirs in the family, who has the right to decide how the coins in the wallet are distributed?
In digital asset inheritance, there is another risk that is easily overlooked: family members often understand "who controls the wallet" as "who is responsible for inheritance."
For example, after a father passes away, his children find an exchange account on his phone, or one family member knows the seed phrase of a hardware wallet, and so plans to first transfer the assets to their own wallet and later discuss distribution with the other relatives. This approach may be technically feasible, but it does not necessarily comply with lawful estate administration and distribution procedures.
Under the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, after inheritance begins, if there is a will, testamentary succession, testamentary gifts, and other arrangements shall be handled in accordance with the law; if there is no will or other special arrangement, statutory heirs shall be determined in accordance with the law. The first order of statutory heirs includes the spouse, children, and parents. If the relevant digital assets are marital community property, it is also necessary to first determine in accordance with the law the share of property to which the spouse is originally entitled, and then confirm the portion that constitutes the decedent's estate. The entire asset cannot be directly treated as estate merely because the digital assets have always been registered or kept in an account controlled by the deceased.
This is especially important in the context of digital assets. Traditional estate transfer usually requires institutions to verify ownership documents, but non-custodial wallets only verify signing authority and do not examine whether the operator is the sole heir. If one family member possesses the private key, they can transfer the assets to a new on-chain address, and the other heirs may not be able to discover this in time, let alone prevent subsequent transfers through ordinary account freezing methods.
Therefore, when there is a dispute over estate distribution, the issue of management authority should be resolved first.Article 1145 of the Civil Codesets out the method for determining the estate administrator,Article 1147sets out the duties to inventory the estate, prepare a list, prevent loss, damage or destruction of estate property, handle claims and debts, and divide the estate in accordance with law. Where the heirs cannot reach agreement on the estate administrator, they may also apply to a people's court for designation in accordance with law.
Specifically with respect to digital assets, the estate administrator or a person duly authorized in accordance with law should organize verification of the relevant wallets, platform accounts and asset inventory, preserve materials capable of proving holdings and transaction history, and specify who keeps the devices, who has access to the keys, and which operations require joint confirmation. For assets already identified, the time of verification, the quantities and the relevant transaction status should also be recorded, so as to avoid new disputes at the subsequent division stage, such as "how many coins were there originally" or "who carried out a particular transfer".
In addition, if the deceased had outstanding lawful debts or other property obligations that should be handled in accordance with law, the heirs likewise cannot discuss only how to divide the coins while disregarding the overall settlement and distribution arrangements for the estate.
The distinctive feature of digital asset inheritance is that technical transfer may be completed before legal distribution. The more readily an asset can be transferred directly, the more necessary it is to specify in advance the management authority and the inheritance shares.
V. What should heirs do first? It is not necessarily to open the wallet immediately
For family members lacking experience with digital assets, the most common reaction upon learning that a relative has left virtual currency is to look for someone who knows how to operate a wallet, hoping to transfer the assets out as soon as possible. However, if the asset type, the conditions of control and the inheritance relationship have not yet been confirmed, direct technical operations may instead create new problems.
A more prudent sequence is to first verify the assets, secure the evidence and confirm the rights, and only then decide how to deal with them.
First, the digital asset accounts and wallets that the deceased may have used during his or her lifetime should be identified.Exchange registration emails, deposit and withdrawal notices, purchase orders, historical bank records, hardware wallet devices and related asset inventories may all help family members determine whether assets exist. Once a wallet address is found, the asset balance and transaction history may also be checked against the public information of the corresponding public blockchain; however, it should be noted that an on-chain address holding assets and those assets belonging to the deceased are two distinct evidentiary questions.
Second, preserve as far as possible the materials relating to the source of the assets and the control relationshipIf the deceased purchased digital assets through an exchange, lawfully obtained account records, orders, transfer vouchers and other materials may be compiled; if the assets were transferred from an exchange to a personal wallet, the relevant on-chain transactions and their correspondence with the person's own accounts need to be verified. For assets held long-term and migrated across multiple platforms, historical records often explain the process by which the property was formed better than a screenshot of the current balance.
Third, legal documents should be prepared based on the actual inheritance relationship.Death certificates, kinship materials, wills, inheritance notarization documents, court judgments and rulings, and proof of identity of the estate administrator may play different roles in different cases. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that a death certificate can only prove that the decedent has passed away and cannot independently prove that the applicant is entitled to obtain all assets. Where multiple heirs are involved, the validity of a will is disputed, or an overseas platform is involved, it is often necessary to further clarify whether the applicant is an heir, an executor of the will, or a lawfully authorized estate administrator.
Finally, the subsequent procedures should be determined based on how the assets are actually held.For centralized exchange accounts, the official inheritance application channels and document requirements should be verified on a priority basis; for non-custodial wallets, the matter should be handled by persons with the corresponding authority on the basis of a completed ownership and security assessment; for assets subject to joint inheritance or third-party rights and interests, the corresponding authorization and distribution issues should be resolved first.
Throughout the process, there are two additional categories of conduct that warrant particular caution.
One is the unauthorized use of the deceased's exchange account. Even if family members can log in through mobile phone verification codes or devices, this does not mean that they have obtained account handling authority recognized by the platform. Overseas platforms in particular may also involve local rules on unauthorized access to computer systems, platform service agreements, and account identity verification rules. The other is handing private keys or mnemonic phrases to "asset recovery institutions" of unknown identity, or connecting wallets and signing on-chain transactions at the request of strangers. Once a complete mnemonic phrase is leaked, it may enable others to obtain the ability to control the assets, and on-chain transfers are generally difficult to reverse.
For heirs, properly safeguarding wallet information among the decedent's belongings is itself part of estate protection; whether they have the right to operate such information, however, requires separate determination.
VI. If the assets are held on an overseas exchange, what additional legal and compliance steps must be crossed?
For persons who live, work, or make long-term investments in digital assets across borders, inheritance involves an additional layer of complexity: the decedent may be a resident of mainland China, but the exchange account may be provided by an overseas entity, and the heirs may also be distributed across different countries and regions.
In such cases, it is first necessary to determine which law applies to the inheritance, and it cannot be assumed that, merely because the heirs hold Chinese identity cards, all assets must necessarily be subject to the same mainland Chinese inheritance procedures.
Taking China'sLaw on the Application of Laws to Foreign-Related Civil Relations as an example, Article 31 providesStatutory succession is in principle governed by the law of the place of habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death, while statutory succession of immovable property is governed by the law of the place where the immovable property is situated;Articles 32 and 33further provide for the law applicable to the form and validity of wills respectively. However, the legal nature of digital assets, the place where they are stored, and the platform service relationship may be quite complex, and the specific applicable law still needs to be determined in light of the actual dispute and cross-border factors.
If it is necessary to submit a death certificate, proof of kinship, or other legal documents issued in mainland China to an overseas exchange, the platform may also require translation, authentication, or other forms of verification, and may confirm, in accordance with local regulations, whether the applicant has the authority to deal with the estate. Some platforms allow account assets to be transferred through a dedicated inheritance procedure, while others may require the designation of a duly authorized representative to receive them on a unified basis.
Even if the heir passes the platform's review, the subsequent receipt and disposal of the assets may still be subject to restrictions under local law, the platform's customer admission policies, and anti-money laundering requirements. In particular, for mainland Chinese residents, the fact that assets are acquired through inheritance does not mean that their subsequent virtual currency exchange, cross-border settlement, or fiat currency crediting activities are necessarily exempt from current regulatory constraints.
Inheritance procedures determine who is entitled to obtain the assets, while financial regulation determines the manner in which the assets may be held and disposed of after acquisition. The two must be assessed separately.
VII. What should digital asset holders arrange in advance during their lifetime?
From the perspective of risk prevention, the most worthwhile discussion regarding digital asset inheritance is in fact not only what family members should do after the holder's death, but also why many people manage relatively high-value on-chain assets during their lifetime yet leave no executable arrangements for their affairs after death.
Bank accounts can usually initiate inquiry procedures through identity and inheritance materials, but digital wallets held entirely by individuals are highly dependent on key management. Once the holder has not informed family members of which platforms or wallets the assets are held on, and has left no lawful, secure, and executable access arrangements, the estate may be legally identifiable but may still be impossible to actually obtain due to the lack of technical conditions for control.
Therefore, for individuals holding relatively large-scale digital assets, more mature estate planning should not merely state "to whom the virtual currency is to be left," but should also consider an asset inventory, ownership documentation, will arrangements, an estate administrator, and how private keys or multi-signature authority are to be securely handed over after inheritance occurs.
However, this does not mean that all mnemonic phrases should be written directly into a will or handed over to all family members in advance. Wills and inheritance documents may need to be shown to others in specific procedures, and once a mnemonic phrase is disclosed, it often means that the wallet loses its security safeguards. A more reasonable approach is to design the property distribution arrangements separately from the key custody arrangements, so that, on the premise of ensuring information security, the persons lawfully entitled to deal with the estate can obtain the necessary operational conditions when needed.
For corporate founders, fund managers, or Web3 practitioners managing project treasuries, particular care should also be taken to distinguish personal assets from assets managed on behalf of others, so as to avoid affecting the asset security of the enterprise or other rights holders after an individual's death due to unclear handover of wallet control authority.
Final remarks
Virtual currency inheritance may appear to concern how relatives obtain the digital assets in a wallet after a person's death, but in substance it connects several distinct systems: inheritance law, ownership of digital assets, cryptographic control, trading platform rules, and cross-border financial regulation.
Some people hold complete inheritance documents yet cannot restore access to the wallet; some can open the wallet but are not the only persons entitled to dispose of the assets; and others have passed a foreign exchange's inheritance review but still face new legal restrictions when subsequently holding the assets and dealing with the funds.
Together, these situations show that digital asset inheritance cannot be assessed solely by asking whether there are any coins, nor solely by asking whether there is a private key.
The law determines who is entitled to inherit; evidence helps confirm ownership of the assets; technology determines whether the assets can actually be controlled; and regulatory rules determine how the assets may subsequently be dealt with.
For heirs, the most important step is not to complete an on-chain transfer as quickly as possible, but first to clarify these layers of relationships. Only by confirming that the assets genuinely form part of the estate, identifying the corresponding inheritance rights, and resolving the necessary conditions of control and authorization can a basis be established for subsequent lawful dealing.
For holders of digital assets, completing estate planning in advance is likewise part of asset management. After all, whether a form of wealth can truly be passed on depends not only on how the holder safeguarded it during life, but also on whether, after death, the persons entitled by law can locate, prove, and securely manage those assets.
This article is written on the basis of the relevant laws and regulations and publicly available trading platform rules in effect as of October 2026. It primarily discusses the inheritance law framework of mainland China and appropriately introduces how foreign platforms handle such matters. Specific inheritance eligibility, the nature of the assets, the applicable law in cross-border contexts, and subsequent dealing should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
