Knaken creditors face losses after €2.2M crypto sale

Dutch prosecutors sold the remaining cryptocurrency seized from failed trading platform Knaken for €2.2 million, giving its bankruptcy estate its first known pool of funds for creditor claims.

Court appointed trustee Carl Hamm told regional broadcaster Rijnmond that the proceeds were currently the estate’s only available money. He warned that thousands of customers should limit their expectations of recovering their full balances.

The sale followed Knaken’s bankruptcy on July 16. Prosecutors are conducting a criminal investigation into possible offenses connected with the platform’s finances, while Hamm is separately reviewing its assets, liabilities and management.

Knaken customers face a large recovery gap

Hamm contacted about 6,300 people who had held positions on Knaken in the recent past. His estimate places the total amount invested through cryptocurrency positions, certificates and customer loans between €10 million and €12 million.

The €2.2 million generated from the asset sale would cover only part of that estimate before bankruptcy costs and the treatment of different creditor classes. Hamm has not published a projected recovery percentage or a distribution date.

As crypto.news previously reported, a Rotterdam court declared Knaken bankrupt after prosecutors alleged €7 million was missing. The official court summary said the company lacked enough assets to repay customers fully.

The court also found that customers could no longer access their accounts or balances after Knaken blocked access to its trading platform. Prosecutors filed the bankruptcy request on June 30 in the public interest because customers lacked enough information to assess their legal positions.

Trustee and Knaken owner dispute customer accounting

Hamm said customers appeared to hold claims against Knaken for euro values rather than direct ownership of cryptocurrency stored in individual wallets. He also alleged that Knaken did not purchase enough crypto to cover all positions shown in customer accounts.

The trustee said customer investments and ordinary business costs had entered a common pool before losses accumulated. His investigation has not produced a final public accounting of how much crypto was purchased or how the shortfall developed.

Knaken owner Ronald J. rejected the broader allegation. He said each customer order was executed through a liquidity provider and could be checked using an order identification number, execution price and timestamp.

“Every order placed via Knaken is executed at our liquidity provider,” Ronald J. said, calling the trustee’s account “outright incorrect and damaging.”

Ronald J. did not deny that Knaken had an uncovered portion. He disputed the suggestion that customer orders generally went unfilled and said positions in most of the roughly 145 supported cryptocurrencies had matching assets.

He also challenged Hamm’s €10 million to €12 million estimate, saying he did not recognize the amount or understand how it was calculated. The trustee’s review and criminal investigation remain active, meaning neither side’s full accounting has received a final judicial determination.

Crypto sale follows seizure before bankruptcy

Prosecutors seized Knaken’s remaining cryptocurrency shortly before the bankruptcy and later ordered its sale. Hamm supported the decision because crypto prices can move sharply while insolvency proceedings continue.

The reported legal basis was Article 117 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows authorities to sell seized property when its value may deteriorate. The proceeds can then be preserved in euros while ownership and creditor rights are resolved.

Court records cited by Dutch media also describe a €2.3 million transfer from Knaken to a private company controlled by Ronald J. The court reportedly characterized the transaction as a conflict of interest. The trustee is examining whether money, receivables or other saleable assets remain elsewhere.

Knaken has linked part of its financial problems to the theft of 23 bitcoin in 2020. Dutch reports noted that those coins were worth about €140,000 when stolen, although later price increases would have changed the value of replacing them. Investigators have not publicly accepted the theft as a complete explanation for the shortfall.

MiCA rules form part of Knaken’s collapse

Knaken stopped regular services after failing to obtain authorization under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto Assets framework. The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets oversees crypto asset service providers in the Netherlands.

The AFM states that firms need authorization or a valid notification from an eligible European regulator before offering covered crypto services in the European Union. The Netherlands ended its national transition period on June 30, 2025.

In related coverage, crypto.news reported that approved firms can use MiCA authorization to provide services across European markets. Knaken was not listed as an authorized provider when its operations stopped.

Its lack of authorization does not establish what happened to customer funds. Licensing status, the bankruptcy shortfall and possible criminal conduct are separate matters that authorities must assess using financial records and other evidence.

What happens next for Knaken creditors

Customers can continue submitting claims to Hamm with account statements and supporting evidence. The trustee must verify those claims, determine their legal ranking and search for additional assets before making distributions.

Hamm is also reviewing whether Knaken’s directors complied with their duties. Prosecutors have not announced charges, named a suspect or set a deadline for completing the criminal investigation.

Ronald J. said he still wants to propose a settlement to creditors. No finalized agreement, payment terms or creditor vote has been announced. Any proposal would need to fit within the court supervised bankruptcy process.

The €2.2 million crypto sale therefore sets a starting point rather than a final recovery figure. Customer repayments will depend on verified claims, administrative costs, creditor priority and whether the trustee finds more assets.