In many ways, the legal framework has stayed the same for many years with bank accounts, homes, pensions and business interests still forming the backbone of most settlements. Yet alongside these familiar assets is something newer and more elusive, that of digital wealth.
Cryptocurrency wallets tucked behind layers of passwords, YouTube channels that earn more in a month than a rental property, or a string of online storefronts quietly generating passive income — all now routinely appear in matrimonial finances. And because they can be hidden in ways traditional assets cannot, uncovering, disclosing and valuing digital assets during divorce has become some of the more challenging tasks solicitors face.
When digital assets become relevant
A few years ago, most people assumed digital assets simply meant Bitcoin. Now, the landscape has widened dramatically. It is now not unusual for a couple’s matrimonial pot to include not just cryptocurrency but things like monetised gaming channels, e-books sold through an online marketplace, domain names, and stakes in tokenised investment schemes. In financial terms, such digital holdings often outweigh a couple’s other assets.
A digital asset does not need to feel real to carry real value. A spouse might run a TikTok account in the evenings for pocket money, upload digital design templates on a craft platform, or hold small amounts of cryptocurrency purchased during a surge in media coverage. Individually these items may appear modest, but collectively they can contribute to the marital finances. By contrast, some things, like an Instagram account used purely for personal photos, rarely enter the picture because they cannot be sold or monetised.
How people hide digital wealth and how it surfaces anyway
Although full and frank disclosure is a central pillar of family law, digital assets can tempt even ordinarily honest spouses to be economical with the truth. Their reasoning often sounds innocent enough: a crypto wallet feels personal, a side hustle seems insignificant, a PayPal balance appears to be just spending money. But in the more contentious cases, concealment is deliberate, for example, a husband who once boasted about mining Ethereum may suddenly claim he never really understood how it worked or a wife who ran a thriving Etsy shop might tell her solicitor she closed it ages ago, even though new customer reviews continue to appear online.
Yet despite the secrecy surrounding some digital activity, it is surprisingly difficult to hide it completely, because digital footprints tend to seep into ordinary life. A bank statement may show regular transfers to Coinbase or Kraken even if the wallet itself is undisclosed. An accounting app linked to a phone may automatically categorise transactions from an online store. Even social media can inadvertently reveal income streams: a spouse claiming to have no ongoing projects, for example, may still be posting new sponsored content or thanking subscribers for supporting their channel. And when a person has previously talked openly about their digital investments, the sudden absence of those assets in their Form E often raises eyebrows.
The legal mechanisms for drawing out the truth
The law offers several tools for compelling a spouse to disclose what they would rather keep private. The Form E establishes the foundation with each party setting out every asset they own, digital or otherwise, with supporting documents. When something does not add up, the next stage of the process, the questionnaire, becomes a place where solicitors can probe more deeply. Questions that once would have seemed far-fetched now appear routinely, such as requests for wallet addresses, transaction histories, analytics dashboards or evidence of online revenue streams.
Where written questions fail, the court’s powers step in. Judges can order a spouse to provide more detailed disclosure, supply statements from digital platforms, or even give access to the devices used to manage online accounts. Accounts held with PayPal, Wise, Revolut or crypto exchanges may be the subject of third-party disclosure orders if a spouse believes information is being withheld.
In more serious cases, where digital assets are being dissipated or transferred at speed, the court can intervene with injunctions designed to freeze the movement of funds. And when a spouse stubbornly refuses to cooperate despite direct orders, the court may draw adverse inferences — essentially assuming the worst and treating the spouse as if they hold more than they admit. In the world of fluctuating digital values, that can significantly affect the final outcome.
Proving ownership of something that only exists online
One of the distinctive challenges of disclosing digital assets is proving who actually owns them. A bank account has a name, whereas a cold-storage wallet does not, and a YouTube channel might be run by one spouse but technically registered under an email and mobile number shared by both parties. In addition, some assets blur personal and business boundaries so completely that ownership becomes a question of control rather than paperwork.
This is where digital forensics, financial evidence and historical context merge. Email accounts often contain automated updates from platforms confirming deposits, sales or advertising revenue. Even lifestyle details such as a pattern of late-night trading, conversations with friends, or social-media posts celebrating investment wins, can all help build a picture.
Ultimately, the court looks at who controls the asset, who has benefited from it, and how it has been treated during the marriage. Ownership in digital contexts is rarely a simple matter of whose name appears on a screen.
The difficult question of value
Perhaps the most contested part of dealing with digital wealth is pinning down what it is worth. Bitcoin can swing by thousands of pounds in a single afternoon. A content-creation account may thrive for a year and then collapse overnight because of changes in algorithms, and NFTs can transform from sought-after art pieces to virtually worthless token images without warning.
To navigate this uncertainty, solicitors often rely on experts. Blockchain analysts can produce detailed reports on wallet holdings, including historic highs and the current spot value. Digital accountants can assess the financial health of an online business or monetised channel, treating it much like a traditional enterprise. Domain-valuation specialists may be called upon to assess the worth of a website or online brand. These experts do not deliver a single figure; more often they provide a range and an explanation of the risks involved.
Judges are familiar with the volatility of digital wealth and have wide discretion when deciding which valuation date to use. Sometimes they adopt the Form E date; in other cases, they consider a later snapshot.