In March 2025, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, when judging Special Appeal No. 2,127,038/SP, under the rapporteurship of Minister Humberto Martins, faced a significant legal controversy: the possibility of issuing orders to cryptoasset brokers (Exchanges) in order to enable subsequent seizure of these digital assets.
During the analysis of the case, the court reformed the decision of the São Paulo State Court, adopting a more coherent understanding with contemporary reality. Referencing Normative Instruction RFB No. 1,888/2019, which obliges exchanges domiciled in Brazil to report to the Federal Revenue all transactions conducted on their platforms, the reporting minister highlighted that cryptoassets are financial assets subject to taxation, endowed with economic value and, therefore, susceptible to judicial constriction.
Under this premise, the STJ invoked Article 789 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which establishes that the debtor is liable with all their assets for unpaid obligations, and determined that it was possible to pursue the seizure of cryptoassets.
Thus, even though the controversy revolves around the effectiveness of the issued orders, the decision represents a new interpretative milestone regarding how the Judiciary deals with cryptoassets. The STJ shifts the debate from the alleged legal impossibility to the realm of overcoming technical barriers, consolidating the understanding that such assets integrate the executable patrimony and are compatible with the tools of forced execution.
The current paradigm
Until the recent decision of the STJ, a conservative position regarding the patrimonial constriction of cryptoassets prevailed, both in jurisprudence and doctrine. This understanding did not deny their seizure in theory but expressed strong hesitation regarding the practical viability of locating, identifying, and enforcing constraining measures on these assets.
It is not, therefore, a legal denial of the constriction of cryptoassets, but a technical-operational retreat, sustained by factors such as the absence of specific normative regulation, the high degree of anonymity provided by technologies such as blockchain, and the typical decentralization of these assets.
This jurisprudential stance is evident in precedents such as that of TJ-SP in Instrument Appeal No. 2202157-35.2017.8.26.0000, judged by the 36th Chamber of Private Law of TJ-SP in 2017, which recognized in theory the possibility of seizure but denied the request due to the absence of 'indications that the respondents had investments in bitcoins or, in any other way, were holders of assets of that nature.'
In the same vein, the TJ-MT, in Case No. 1010209-33.2020.8.11.0000, stated that the determination of the blocking of values must be made in current currency, making it impossible to do so in cryptoassets. Finally, the TJ-DFT, in Case No. 0716188-60.2020.8.07.0000, highlighted that the enforceability of the seizure of cryptoassets would be unlikely.
Opinion
In the mentioned REsp, the originating court relied on exactly these premises when denying the exequente's request and decreeing the sending of orders as an ineffective measure. Considering these aspects, it would indeed make no sense to determine the issuance of orders to exchanges if, in the end, the seizure would be impossible, under penalty of violating the principle of efficiency of the judicial process.
However, it should be noted that such rulings did not declare the legal impossibility of seizing cryptoassets, as they limited themselves to emphasizing their practical complexity. It is precisely at this point that the decision of the Superior Court of Justice reveals a paradigmatic inflection.
The view of Minister Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva expressly recognizes the technical challenges involved but emphasizes that such difficulties do not legitimize the Judiciary's inertia in seeking credit satisfaction. Decentralization, anonymity, and regulatory gaps cannot serve as pretexts for noncompliance; the Judiciary must adopt a proactive and evolutionary stance.
In other words, the new understanding does not ignore existing obstacles but imposes on the Judiciary the duty to adapt its tools and procedural techniques to the new digital reality, without renouncing the effectiveness of jurisdiction.
Thus, the decision ceases to treat cryptoassets as an exception to the seizure regime and definitively integrates them into the executable patrimony, establishing a new benchmark: the constriction of digital assets is no longer a remote viability hypothesis but a judicial obligation to be pursued with available means.
The centrality of exchanges in the cryptocurrency market and the need for a new paradigm
Although the core of the judgment was the admissibility of issuing orders to exchanges, its impact goes beyond the simple authorization of procedural measures. By granting the exequente's REsp, attention now turns to the brokers, who are the gateway to the viability of locating and seizing these assets.
With the consolidation of these platforms in the financial ecosystem, exchanges have ceased to be mere commercial intermediaries, beginning to perform functions analogous to those of traditional financial institutions. Acting in the intermediation of the purchase, sale, custody, and conversion of cryptoassets into current currency, they are structured with robust compliance mechanisms, traceability, and data storage.
This operational centrality proves crucial from the perspective of civil execution, as these platforms concentrate, in systematized bases, sensitive information about users: identification, tax domicile, asset volume, frequency, and values of operations. It is this set of data that the Judiciary can legitimately resort to in order to adopt effective constraining measures, overcoming the alleged opacity of digital assets.
The prominence of exchanges is reinforced by Normative Instruction RFB No. 1,888/2019, which imposes on exchanges domiciled in Brazil the obligation to report to the Federal Revenue all transactions involving cryptoassets carried out on their platforms. The content of the reports includes the date, type, and value of each operation, as well as the identification of the user holder, which provides the Tax Authorities and, by extension, the Judiciary (upon request), a powerful instrument of asset traceability.
Furthermore, exchanges facilitate not only the custody but also the liquidity of digital assets. Their systems are equipped with real-time trading tools that allow users to issue buy and sell orders instantaneously, based on updated prices according to market dynamics.
This operational fluidity evidences that cryptoassets, although intangible and dematerialized, possess concrete, measurable, and realizable exchange value, which reinforces their nature as an asset suitable for seizure.
Given this context, the issuing of orders directly to exchanges proves not only legally possible but procedurally indispensable. It is the most efficient and proportional way to break with the apparent digital invisibility of cryptoassets, allowing the executive process to also reach the debtor's assets stored in a virtual environment.
Thus, the decision of the STJ should be celebrated as a true paradigm shift: it recognizes the patrimonial nature of cryptoassets, admits their seizure based on already existing normative foundations, and encourages the Judiciary to adapt to the new digital economic reality.
This is a decisive step towards modernizing the Brazilian executive process, whose adaptation to the digital economy requires not only new tools but also new legal positions, as established in Special Appeal No. 2,127,038/SP.
Conclusion
The decision rendered by the Superior Court of Justice in REsp No. 2,127,038/SP represents a paradigmatic milestone in the consolidation of jurisdictional protection over cryptoassets in the Brazilian legal system.
By admitting the issuing of orders to exchanges as a legitimate and necessary measure to enable the seizure of these digital assets, the Superior Court broke with the previously predominant stance characterized by institutional restraint in the face of the technical complexity involved.
More than authorizing a specific procedural measure, the court expressly recognizes the patrimonial nature of cryptoassets and their susceptibility to forced execution, shifting the debate from the alleged legal impossibility to the construction of practical and legal solutions aimed at their realization.
Thus, the judgment projects effects that transcend the specific case, providing interpretative guidelines for the modernization of civil execution and signaling the need for technical adaptation in the face of the rise of digital assets.
[1] ANTUNES, André Luiz Marcelino. The integration of Social Capital with Cryptoassets and the obstacles encountered. Final Paper presented to the LL.C. program in Business Law at Insper – Institute of Education and Research, as a requirement for obtaining the title of postgraduate in Business Law. São Paulo. 2021.
[2] GOMES, Daniel de Paiva. Bitcoin: the taxation of Cryptocurrencies: From chameleonic taxonomy to the taxation of Cryptoassets without identified issuers. São Paulo: Thomson Reuters Brazil, 2021.
