INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING | TRANSGLOBAL WARRANT COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
April 2026 | Asset Recovery & Financial Intelligence
Executive Summary
Cross-border asset recovery has continued to evolve rapidly across the major enforcement jurisdictions in 2025–2026. Legislative reforms, high-profile case outcomes, and the growing challenge of digital asset tracing have reshaped the practical landscape for legal practitioners and investigative specialists engaged in international asset recovery work. This briefing examines key developments in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union.
Australia: Record Asset Restraints and Expanded Unexplained Wealth Powers
The Australian Federal Police’s Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce (CACT) has continued to expand its operational reach, working in collaboration with state and territory police and the Australian Border Force. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), restrained assets reached record levels in the 2024–2025 financial year, with a significant proportion arising from complex financial crime and organised crime matters with international dimensions.
Practitioners operating in Australia should note the expanded use of unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) in recent matters. UWOs place the burden of proof on the subject to demonstrate the lawful origin of assets — a significant departure from the standard criminal burden of proof. The provisions have been increasingly used against individuals with connections to overseas organised crime networks, where traditional evidentiary pathways are more complex.
A notable development in the 2025–2026 period is the increased use of internationally-coordinated asset freezing, facilitated through the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units and direct AFP-to-AFP liaison. Practitioners instructing in Australia in matters with offshore asset dimensions should ensure early engagement with the AFP’s Proceeds of Crime Litigation unit to explore availability of interim restraining orders.
United Kingdom: NCA’s Expanded Use of Unexplained Wealth Orders
The UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) has been increasingly active in deploying Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs) under the Criminal Finances Act 2017. While early UWO applications met with mixed success in the courts following the contested Hajiyeva matter, more recent cases have demonstrated a more robust evidentiary approach by the NCA, with improved success rates.
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 introduced further reforms aimed at improving the UK’s ability to seize and recover criminal assets, including expanded powers relating to crypto-assets. The Act creates new crypto-asset seizure and recovery powers that do not require a prior conviction, significantly strengthening the UK’s toolkit for recovering digital assets connected to criminal activity.
Post-Brexit, the UK has been actively building bilateral asset recovery cooperation arrangements to replace EU mechanisms. The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) provides a framework for cooperation in criminal matters, but practical cooperation in asset recovery matters has required additional bilateral engagement. Practitioners should factor in potentially extended timelines for UK-EU asset recovery cooperation compared to the pre-Brexit EAW and asset recovery directive framework.
European Union: New Asset Recovery and Confiscation Directive
The EU’s Asset Recovery and Confiscation Directive, agreed in 2024, represents a significant step forward in harmonising asset recovery across member states. The Directive sets minimum standards for tracing, freezing, and confiscating criminal assets and requires member states to establish dedicated asset recovery offices (AROs) with enhanced inter-agency cooperation capabilities.
A key development under the new Directive is the strengthening of the EU’s framework for non-conviction-based confiscation — allowing assets to be confiscated in cases where a criminal conviction cannot be obtained but where there is sufficient evidence of a criminal origin. This has significant practical implications for international asset recovery matters involving EU-based assets.
Practitioners and clients with matters involving EU-based assets should note the Directive’s implementation timelines — member states are required to transpose the Directive into national law, and implementation will be phased across 2025–2027. The practical impact will vary by member state depending on the existing national framework and the pace of implementation.
Cryptocurrency and Digital Asset Tracing
The tracing and recovery of digital assets continues to present significant challenges for practitioners across all jurisdictions. Blockchain analytics tools — including those produced by Chainalysis, Elliptic, and TRM Labs — have become increasingly sophisticated, enabling law enforcement and specialist investigators to trace cryptocurrency movements across exchanges and wallets with significantly greater precision than was possible several years ago.
Several major jurisdictions have established dedicated cryptocurrency investigation units. The UK’s NCA operates a dedicated virtual asset team. The US has the IRS Criminal Investigation Cyber Unit and DOJ’s National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET). Australia’s AFP operates a dedicated cybercrime and digital assets capability. These units have achieved significant results in tracing and recovering digital assets connected to ransomware payments, darknet markets, and investment fraud schemes.
Significant challenges remain, however. Privacy coins (Monero, Zcash), tumbling and mixing services, decentralised exchanges, and cross-chain bridges continue to complicate tracing operations. The legal mechanisms for freezing and recovering digital assets — once traced — also vary significantly between jurisdictions, with some lacking specific legislative frameworks for crypto-asset restraint and forfeiture.
Operational Recommendations
Based on the developments surveyed in this briefing, Transglobal recommends the following for legal practitioners and investigative specialists engaged in cross-border asset recovery:
- Engage specialist investigators early. Asset tracing is most effective when commenced promptly, before assets can be moved, layered through corporate structures, or converted into forms that are more difficult to trace. Early engagement with specialist investigators — prior to or concurrent with the commencement of legal proceedings — is strongly recommended.
- Consider non-conviction-based recovery options. In jurisdictions where it is available, non-conviction-based asset recovery (civil forfeiture) may provide a faster and more operationally certain pathway than conviction-based confiscation, particularly in cases involving offshore defendants or complex evidentiary challenges.
- Retain specialist crypto-asset tracing capability for digital asset matters. Standard investigative tools and approaches are insufficient for digital asset tracing. Specialist blockchain analytics capability is required, ideally integrated with access to proprietary exchange account information through appropriate legal process.
- Map the jurisdictional landscape early. In matters involving assets in multiple jurisdictions, a thorough mapping of the applicable legal frameworks, cooperation mechanisms, and practical enforcement environment in each jurisdiction is essential before committing to a recovery strategy. Transglobal’s Jurisdiction Intelligence Guide provides a starting point; network practitioners with specific jurisdictional expertise should be engaged for complex multi-jurisdictional matters.
This briefing is produced by Transglobal Warrant Compliance & Enforcement Agency for qualified practitioners and institutional stakeholders. It provides a general overview of developments and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek specialist legal advice on the specific facts of their matter.
Leave a Reply