Kenya’s Unclaimed Crypto Proposal: What Treasury’s Draft Policy Actually Says
Treasury’s draft unclaimed-assets policy covers digital assets and proposes legal reform. It does not itself create a new wallet-seizure power.
On this page
Market Context
Treasury’s draft policy cites KES 394 billion in estimated Kenyan unclaimed financial assets in 2025. The 2018 estimate was KES 241 billion. These figures cover financial assets broadly, not crypto alone. They show the scale of the ownership and recovery problem. Draft policy, introduction.
Kenya wants to close gaps in how unclaimed digital assets are identified and managed.
The proposal appears in the draft National Policy on Unclaimed Financial Assets. Treasury is seeking comments by 4 December 2026. Official consultation notice.
The draft is a policy proposal. It does not itself amend legislation or give the State a new method to access private wallets.
A wider asset problem
| Category | Value (KES billion) |
|---|---|
| 2018 estimate | 241 |
| 2025 estimate | 394 |
All covered financial asset classes. These are estimates across the economy, not crypto balances or UFAA’s cash holdings.
Source: Treasury draft policy, citing UFAA survey estimates.
The estimate rose by KES 153 billion between the two survey years. That is about 63.5%, calculated from the rounded figures.
It should not be presented as the amount of crypto awaiting recovery.
The draft’s definition of financial assets includes digital assets. Section 3.1.1 identifies gaps in their coverage.
Section 3.1.4 proposes frameworks for emerging digital financial assets and their safeguarding. Draft policy, key terms and policy statements.
What the proposed reforms would change
Section 3.1.1 calls for a legal review covering all financial asset classes. It also proposes stronger enforcement of reporting and surrender obligations.
The same section proposes simpler claims procedures, particularly for low-value claims.
Section 3.1.4 separately proposes surrendering foreign-currency assets in Kenyan shillings at prevailing Central Bank of Kenya exchange rates.
That wording does not establish a conversion rule for stablecoins. A token tracking the dollar should not automatically be treated as a foreign-currency bank balance.
The draft leaves the detailed treatment of digital assets to further frameworks. Proposed legal and safeguarding reforms, pages 17–19.
Custody changes the practical question
A customer balance at an exchange differs from assets controlled through a personal wallet.
The first may involve an identifiable institution holding assets for a customer. The second depends on access to the signing keys.
| Arrangement | Practical question for future rules |
|---|---|
| Custodial account | Which institution holds the assets and customer records? |
| Self-custody wallet | Who can authorise a transfer? |
| Deceased account holder | Who can prove legal entitlement? |
| Missing access credentials | Can the asset be accessed at all? |
These are implementation questions. The table does not assign a new legal dormancy period to crypto.
Our guide to where Bitcoin is held after purchase explains the custody distinction.
Owners retain the right to claim assets
UFAA’s current guidance says owners retain an indefinite right to reunification.
It also says there is no deadline for lodging a claim. UFAA FAQs.
That matters when interpreting headlines about assets being “seized.”
The existing framework is built around identifying owners, reporting assets and returning them to eligible claimants.
A future digital-asset process would need to explain how those rights operate.
That includes proof of ownership, valuation, custody and the treatment of price changes.
Existing dormancy periods should not be copied onto crypto
UFAA publishes different periods for different asset classes.
Its guidance lists five years for certain bank deposits, three years for ownership interests and one year for unpaid wages.
Those examples do not establish a crypto-specific period. Existing asset categories and periods.
The policy debate should identify the relevant asset and legal obligation first.
A quiet blockchain address alone does not explain who owns it. Nor does it establish that an institution owes a customer an unclaimed balance.
Inheritance needs both entitlement and access
UFAA’s beneficiary process asks for evidence of legal entitlement. Its published requirements include death and succession documents where applicable. Beneficiary claiming instructions.
For digital assets, legal entitlement and technical access are separate issues.
A beneficiary may have a valid claim yet lack access to a self-custody wallet. A custodial platform may instead have an account-recovery process.
Neither situation should be confused with recovery after an exchange closes.
The facts, contractual duties and relevant law differ.
Questions the final framework should answer
Future rules need clear criteria for identifying a holder and an unclaimed asset.
They also need to address valuation dates and the asset returned to the owner.
Would an eligible claimant receive tokens or a cash amount? Who would bear price changes during custody?
How would the process treat frozen accounts, disputed ownership and unavailable keys?
These are questions for consultation. They should not be described as decisions already made.
The issue also sits alongside Kenya’s VASP framework. Licensing and unclaimed-asset administration serve different functions.
How to comment on the proposal
Treasury’s notice invites submissions to ufanationalpolicy@ufaa.go.ke by 4 December 2026.
It also schedules 11 public forums between 23 November and 4 December. Use the official notice for venue and county details.
A useful submission identifies the policy section, proposed wording and supporting reason. It should explain the custody or claims problem the change would solve.
The draft and comment template are listed on the Treasury public-notices page.
