Though the article is not clear on facts, the sensational title conveys the following:

That certain investments made by drug dealers were assessed and as the investment from drug money was in the form of Bitcoins, the value of the Bitcoins on that day was converted into Swedish kroner for the purpose of adjudication.

Therefore the property to be attached/confiscated was indexed in Swedish kroner and the judgement, after trial (probably), confiscated the amount in the assessed Swedish Kroner. Since the primary asset (?) of BTCs we’re still kept as BTCs, those BTCs appreciated and the confiscated amount was not the value of the BTCs, as on the day of the judgement but in Swedish kroner, as predetermined in Swedish Kroner.

Since there has been an appreciation in value of the BTCs from the date of the chargesheet (?) and the date of judgement, the amount to be confiscated was determined as only the amount equivalent to the converted Swedish kroner!

The residual amount out of the sale of the BTCs should be given back to those convicted drug dealers!

This situation is a double edged sword:

How are the prosecutors to suppose the appreciation in value of the BTCs in future?

Supposing BTCs had declined in value, would the prosecutors not been taken to task for not having converted the value of the BTCs into fiat currency as on the date of the seizure?

When BTCs have not been recognised as assets or money, the Swedish prosecutors couldn’t have seized it as an asset or a money, maybe they could have seized it as a commodity, if so, considering the volatility of the BTCs seized, why didn’t they sell it and monetise it in fiat currency so that the appreciated value would not have accrued to the benefit of those Drug convicts?

Supposing the value of BTCs had depreciated, How would the Swedish prosecutors have realised the value, as on the date of seizure?

In any criminal proceeds, if the seizure were to be in goods, and the goods were considered to be perishable, those goods are to be auctioned off expeditiously and the proceeds considered the value of the goods seized.

In this case, when the volatility is well known, at least not to be left with a depreciated value, why didn’t the prosecutors monetise the same. This would have avoided the convicted criminals from enjoying the fruits of their crime.

Isn’t it?

In effect the prosecutors have enriched the criminals and have also aided them in discharging their criminal liabilities in full 😎