Rumours Of DOJ Selling Bitcoin Surface Social Media

Thus far, none of the blockchain activity shows the Bitcoin leaving Coinbase’s infrastructure or fragmenting into outputs that would suggest a trade execution. The transfer sequence follows typical custodial patterns and does not support the claim of liquidation.

Src: X (Crypto Rover)

Off-Chain Actions Remain Opaque

Because Coinbase Prime handles conversions from BTC to USD off-chain, any actual sale would leave no trace on the blockchain. That means only off-chain records—such as DOJ documentation, court orders, or execution confirmations—can verify whether a sale occurred.

A recently surfaced “Asset Liquidation Agreement” shows that Rodriguez and Hill agreed to forfeit exactly 57.553 BTC, worth over $6.3 million at the time. The document was signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Cecilia Vogel on November 3. However, the Bitcoin appears to have gone directly to Coinbase Prime, bypassing traditional USMS custody.

While this adds weight to claims of a sale, it still does not prove one occurred. Off-chain actions remain unverified without official confirmation.

What Executive Order 14233 Actually Requires

Signed by President Trump, Executive Order 14233 mandates that all Bitcoin acquired through federal asset forfeiture be retained as part of the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. It specifically prohibits agencies from selling these assets unless they meet strict conditions—none of which appear relevant in this case.

Legal experts point to several statutes that support this interpretation. For example, 18 U.S. Code § 982 and related forfeiture laws govern the handling of seized property but do not require liquidation. The Executive Order treats forfeited crypto as “Government BTC,” which agencies must retain unless directed otherwise by the Attorney General.

So, if the DOJ sold the BTC without such approval, it may have violated this order. Whether the Bitcoin ever entered Treasury Reserve accounts, as required, is also unclear due to a lack of documentation.

The Role of the Southern District of New York

The case raises broader concerns about how the Southern District of New York (SDNY) handles crypto prosecutions. Known informally as the “Sovereign District of New York,” SDNY often operates with a high degree of autonomy.

This isn’t the first time SDNY has pushed ahead despite federal policy guidance. Prosecutors continued the Samourai Wallet case even after DOJ leadership signaled a shift in stance. In April 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memo stating that DOJ would stop targeting privacy wallets and other noncustodial crypto tools based solely on user activity. SDNY ignored that memo.

When defense attorneys learned that FinCEN officials viewed Samourai as a noncustodial service—one that likely didn’t qualify as a money transmitter—they still saw the case move forward. Facing long odds and harsh sentencing, both Rodriguez and Hill eventually took plea deals.

Senator Lummis Questions Sale On X

Senator Cynthia Lummis voiced strong concern following reports of the Samourai Wallet Bitcoin potentially being sold by U.S. authorities. In a public statement, she questioned why the federal government continues to liquidate seized Bitcoin despite President Trump’s Executive Order explicitly mandating its retention in the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. Lummis warned that offloading these digital assets undermines U.S. strategic interests, especially as other nations actively accumulate Bitcoin. She called the situation deeply troubling and urged immediate oversight.

Conclusion: No Sale Proven, But Questions Remain

As it stands, the blockchain does not confirm that the forfeited BTC was sold. All activity appears consistent with custodial operations inside Coinbase Prime. However, without access to court filings or execution logs, one cannot rule out an off-chain sale.

If the DOJ did liquidate the Bitcoin without proper authority, it may have directly violated Executive Order 14233. Whether this marks another instance of the SDNY acting outside federal directives remains an open question.

Until more evidence surfaces, the answer lies not on-chain, but in documents the public can’t yet see.