Valuing Crypto Assets for Court: Which Date Applies

The most common error in valuing cryptocurrency for court is to price it “as of today.” In reality the decisive question is always different: on which legally relevant date should the asset be valued, and at what exchange rate? The answer determines the amount of damage in a criminal case, the fairness of dividing marital property, and the true value of an estate. Get the date wrong and even technically flawless calculations lose their weight.

Why the date is half the conclusion

Crypto assets are among the most volatile instruments on the market. The price of Bitcoin or Ether can move by tens of percent within a few days — sometimes within hours — and for less liquid tokens the swings are sharper still. The same quantity of coins is therefore worth dramatically different sums depending on which date is taken as the point of reference.

In my expert practice, an incorrectly chosen date is the single most frequent reason a conclusion is challenged in court. If an asset is valued “as of the date of the examination” rather than as of the date of the legally significant event, the valuation does not reflect the moment that actually matters to the case. High volatility turns the choice of date from a technical detail into a determining factor — one that directly affects the legal classification of the act or the size of the claim.

That is why, in an economic forensic examination of crypto assets, the work does not begin with the rate. It begins with a question: which event is legally relevant, and on what date did it occur?

The legally relevant date, by category of case

The valuation date is not chosen at will. It is anchored to an event defined by substantive and procedural law. In broad terms:

Category of case	Legally relevant date
Criminal (misappropriation, damage)	Date of the act / of the harm caused
Civil, commercial (losses, recovery)	Date the loss was caused, or date set by contract
Family (division of marital property)	Date determined by the court on the facts
Inheritance	Day the succession opens (day of death)

A few clarifications to the table.

• Criminal cases. The amount of harm is fixed as of the moment the act was committed. If funds were stolen and converted into a stablecoin or another cryptocurrency, the asset is valued as of the date of the misappropriation — not the date it was discovered or investigated. This is critical for classification by the size of the harm. Such proceedings are often handled by the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB), and the questions put to the expert are framed by the pre-trial investigation body.
• Civil and commercial disputes. The reference point is the date the loss occurred, or a date set by the contract or by law. Where a monetary obligation is tied to the value of a crypto asset, the moment the obligation was breached serves as the anchor.
• Family disputes. There is no universal date; the court sets it on the facts — the end of a shared household, or the time of the hearing. The expert’s task is to value the asset accurately as of the date stated in the ruling that appoints the examination. If the date is not specified, it should be clarified before the analysis begins.
• Inheritance cases. Under the Civil Code of Ukraine, the succession opens on the day of the person’s death (Article 1220). It is on that date that the composition and value of the estate are determined, including any crypto assets held in the deceased’s wallet.

The date must be stated expressly in the questions put to the expert. If the court ruling or the investigator’s order does not specify it, that is grounds to seek clarification — not to choose one independently. Otherwise the expert steps outside their competence and takes on a legal assessment that is not theirs to make.

Source of the rate: why the NBU does not quote crypto

The next question after the date is where the rate comes from. Here there is a matter of principle: the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) does not set an official rate for cryptocurrencies. The NBU establishes the official hryvnia rate only against foreign currencies (the US dollar, the euro and so on). Crypto assets are not currency — not legal tender — in Ukraine, so no “state” rate for Bitcoin exists.

The market value of a crypto asset is therefore determined from trading-venue (exchange) data. But even here you cannot simply take the first number you find.

• Several venues, not one. Prices differ across exchanges. Sound methodology uses a weighted average across several liquid venues rather than a single exchange quote, which may be unrepresentative.
• Accounting for liquidity. For a high-volume asset (Bitcoin, Ether) the market price is objective. For a low-liquidity token, a “listing price” with no real trades does not reflect market value — and this must be flagged separately in the conclusion.
• A timestamp. Because the crypto market runs around the clock, it is essential to fix not only the date but a representative moment in time (for example, the time of the event, or a daily weighted average), with the time zone clearly stated.

Justifying the chosen methodology by reference to the asset’s volatility is a mandatory part of the conclusion. The expert must explain why this particular data source, this method of averaging and this time anchor were used. That requirement flows from the principles of forensic expert activity set out in the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Activity” and in Ministry of Justice Instruction No. 53/5: a conclusion must be reasoned and verifiable.

Methodology for converting into hryvnia

Because proceedings are conducted in the national currency, the value of a crypto asset almost always has to be expressed in hryvnia. In practice this is a two-step conversion.

1. Crypto to dollar (or euro). Most crypto pairs are quoted in dollar terms (against USD or dollar-pegged stablecoins). On the chosen date, the dollar value of the asset is established at the weighted-average exchange rate.
2. Dollar to hryvnia. The resulting sum is converted into hryvnia at the official NBU rate set for that same legally relevant date.

This approach combines the market nature of the crypto asset (the exchange rate) with a legally correct conversion into hryvnia (the official NBU rate). One point is essential: the official NBU rate is fixed for a specific date, whereas crypto trades continuously — so the date must be the same for both steps. Otherwise a gap opens up that an opposing party will spot at once.

Documentary evidence

An expert’s conclusion stands on sources that can be verified. The evidentiary basis for valuing crypto assets is built from several components.

• Transaction history. A statement from an exchange account or wallet confirming the existence, volume and movement of the asset.
• Blockchain explorer data. The public transaction ledger allows the operations for a wallet address to be confirmed independently — an objective source anyone can check.
• Quote screenshots with a timestamp. A capture of a price page for the valuation date must show a visible date and time, the source’s name and, where possible, the URL. A screenshot without a timestamp and without a source has practically no evidentiary force.
• A record of the official NBU rate for the relevant date as a separate source (published on the regulator’s website).

Every source must be reproducible: given the same input data, another specialist should reach the same result. That reproducibility is the hallmark of sound methodology.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Valuing “as of today” instead of the date of the legally relevant event — the crudest and most frequent error.
• A rate from a single venue, chosen selectively (often the highest or lowest price), with no averaging across exchanges.
• Ignoring the two-step conversion — taking a figure in dollars and failing to convert it into hryvnia at the official NBU rate for the same date.
• A screenshot with no timestamp, source or URL — such evidence is easily challenged.
• Confusing time zones (UTC versus Kyiv time) in a round-the-clock market.
• Valuing an illiquid token at a nominal price with no real market of trades.

Example situations (generalized)

• Criminal case. Company funds were withdrawn and converted into a stablecoin. The question for the expert is the asset’s value on the date of misappropriation, not the date proceedings were opened. The rate difference between those dates can change the classification by the size of the harm.
• Division of marital property. One spouse held Bitcoin in an exchange account. The expert values it as of the date the court determined, documenting the balance from the statement and the rate — with a source cited at every step.
• Inheritance case. Crypto assets were found in the deceased’s wallet. The value is fixed as of the day the succession opened, which directly affects the size of the heirs’ shares.

Key takeaways

Valuing crypto assets for court is not “looking up the price now.” It is a sequence: correctly identify the legally relevant date; take a representative exchange rate across several venues; convert into hryvnia at the official NBU rate for that same date; and support everything with reproducible documents. An error at any step leaves the conclusion open to challenge.

If crypto assets feature in your case and their value needs to be established in a legally sound way, it is wise to involve a forensic economic expert as early as the stage of framing the questions — it saves time and guards against mistakes that are hard to correct later. I am available to advise on how to formulate the questions and on the valuation methodology for your specific situation.