Europe Sees Sharp Rise in Violent Crypto Thefts as Physical Coercion Surges

Violent thefts aimed at extracting access to digital-asset holdings escalated markedly in 2025, representing a shift from purely virtual intrusions to attacks that blend cyber and physical tactics. Reported incidents in which victims were forced to surrender private keys or seed phrases rose substantially year‑over‑year, with dozens of documented cases and Europe emerging as a particularly visible locus — several countries reported outsized counts. Criminal methods ranged from home invasions and kidnappings to threats against relatives and romance-based lures that culminated in coerced transfers. Analysts tie the trend partly to stronger technical defenses and hardened custody practices that have increased the cost and complexity of remote theft, prompting some adversaries to exploit the human element instead. Confirmed direct financial impact from these coercive, in-person incidents runs into the tens of millions of dollars, though observers warn true losses are probably higher because many victims avoid reporting out of fear or privacy concerns. At the same time, broader industry data show that aggregate monthly and annual on-chain theft totals remain dominated by high-dollar social-engineering incidents and technical exploits; trackers reported roughly $370.3 million removed from wallets and platforms in a single January period and other reviews estimated roughly $158 billion in illicit flows for the full year, underscoring that physical attacks are part of a larger, increasingly professionalized criminal ecosystem. That ecosystem — including tailored stablecoins, dense wallet clusters and faster laundering chains identified by intelligence reviews — lowers barriers for converting stolen assets to usable value and can accelerate exits after both virtual and physical thefts. Insurers and specialist providers have begun adding personal-attack coverage and concierge response services aimed at high-net-worth holders, shifting some risk off individuals but raising questions about affordability and moral hazard. For custodians and exchanges, the development underscores that technical hardening must be paired with user education, secure custody options, device hygiene, and rapid-response protocols that account for duress scenarios. Law enforcement and industry actors will need better cross-border cooperation and victim-protection frameworks to address networks that appear to target holders across jurisdictions and to disrupt the intermediary rails that enable quick laundering. Without coordinated policy and operational changes, incentive structures favor opportunistic groups that can combine traditional organized‑crime tactics with knowledge of crypto operations, making physical safety an increasingly important dimension of digital-asset security.