French lawmakers have advanced a proposal requiring cryptocurrency holders to declare assets valued at €100,000 ($112,000) or more held in self-custody wallets. The amendment, adopted by the National Assembly's Finance Committee on Friday, would impose fines of up to €10,000 ($11,000) for non-compliance. The rule targets holdings based on their value at the end of the calendar year and aims to combat fraud by addressing underestimated crypto ownership.
The proposal has triggered significant backlash from the crypto community, with critics arguing it threatens personal security. This concern stems from France’s recent history of high-profile "wrench attacks," including the kidnapping of Ledger co-founder David Balland and his wife in 2025, and an attempted kidnapping involving the spouse of Sébastien Borget, co-founder of The Sandbox. Prominent figures such as Rand Hindi, founder of Zama, and Harry Halpin, CEO of Nym, have publicly opposed the measure, citing risks associated with data leaks and corrupt employees within the French tax authority.
It is important to note that the proposed rule is not yet law and remains subject to change. Although the Finance Committee adopted the amendment, it subsequently rejected the budget’s entire revenue section by a vote of 31 to 3. Consequently, the full National Assembly will resume floor debates starting from the government’s original text, which does not include these crypto-specific amendments. Lawmakers must re-table the proposals if they wish to reintroduce them.
This development highlights the tension between regulatory transparency goals and physical security concerns in jurisdictions with rising violent crime targeting digital asset holders. While the intent to curb fraud through mandatory reporting aligns with global anti-money laundering standards, the specific context of France’s recent wave of kidnappings creates a unique compliance risk. Critics argue that centralized databases of high-value wallet addresses could become targets for criminals, potentially exacerbating the very insecurity the regulation seeks to mitigate through legal means.
The procedural rejection of the broader revenue section underscores the fragility of this legislative push. By discarding the committee’s amendments, the National Assembly resets the debate to the government’s baseline, signaling that the path to enacting such strict reporting requirements is uncertain and politically contested. Stakeholders should monitor whether the government reintroduces similar measures in future budget cycles or opts for alternative enforcement mechanisms that do not rely on public declaration thresholds.
