Can Digital Wallets Like Cash App, Venmo, and PayPal Be Garnished?

Money held in digital payment platforms is not protected from garnishment. A judgment creditor who obtains a writ of garnishment can serve it on Cash App, Venmo, PayPal, or any other platform that holds funds on behalf of a debtor. The legal treatment is the same as a traditional bank account. If the platform owes money to the debtor or holds the debtor’s property, it is a proper garnishment target under Florida’s Chapter 77 garnishment statute.

The misconception that digital wallets are beyond a creditor’s reach persists because people think of these platforms as technology services rather than financial accounts. But the law looks at economic substance, not the interface. If a platform holds your money and you can spend it or withdraw it, a creditor can garnish it.

How Digital Wallet Garnishment Works

Florida’s garnishment statute allows a judgment creditor to serve a writ on any third party that is “indebted” to the debtor or holds the debtor’s property. The garnishee must answer the writ by disclosing what it owes or holds.

When a creditor serves a writ of garnishment on Cash App, the writ goes to Block, Inc. (Cash App’s parent company) and to the partner banks that actually hold the funds—primarily Sutton Bank and Lincoln Savings Bank. When the writ targets a Venmo or PayPal account, it is served on PayPal, Inc., which holds user funds in custodial or pooled accounts. These entities must comply with valid court orders just as any traditional bank would.

Upon receiving the writ, the platform freezes the debtor’s account balance up to the amount of the judgment. The debtor typically learns about the freeze when a transaction is declined or the account shows a restricted status. The platform then files an answer with the court disclosing the amount held.

The process mirrors standard bank account garnishment. The debtor receives notice from the creditor under § 77.041 and has 20 days to file a Claim of Exemption. If the debtor does not respond within the statutory window, the frozen funds are released to the creditor.

Asset Accounts vs. Transfer-Only Services

Not every digital payment service works the same way for garnishment purposes. The critical distinction is whether the platform holds funds or merely transfers them.

Cash App, Venmo, and PayPal are “asset accounts.” These platforms accept deposits, maintain balances, and allow users to spend directly from the stored funds. Because they hold the debtor’s money, a creditor can garnish them directly. The writ freezes whatever balance exists at the time of service.

Zelle operates differently. Zelle is a transfer service that moves money between traditional bank accounts. It does not hold a balance. When someone sends money through Zelle, the funds move from one bank to another. Because Zelle does not hold any of the debtor’s funds, a writ of garnishment served on Zelle would yield nothing. However, Zelle’s records can reveal the bank account information on both ends of the transfer. A creditor who subpoenas Zelle’s transaction records during post-judgment discovery can identify which traditional bank accounts the debtor uses and then serve the writ on those banks directly.

Chime presents a similar situation. Chime is not a bank but a financial technology company that partners with Stride Bank and The Bancorp Bank to provide banking services. A writ of garnishment should be directed at the partner banks rather than at Chime itself, because the partner banks are the entities actually holding the debtor’s funds.

How Creditors Find Digital Wallet Accounts

A practical barrier to garnishing digital wallets has always been discovery. Creditors can only garnish accounts they know about, and digital wallet accounts do not appear on credit reports or in public records.

After obtaining a judgment, the creditor’s primary discovery tool in Florida is the proceeding supplementary under Rule 1.560 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The creditor can compel the debtor to appear for a deposition under oath and disclose all accounts where money is held, including digital wallet accounts. The debtor must answer truthfully. Concealing accounts or providing false testimony can result in contempt sanctions.

Creditors also find digital wallet accounts by examining the debtor’s traditional bank statements. Transfers to and from Cash App, Venmo, or PayPal appear as identifiable line items on bank statements—typically labeled with the platform’s name or parent company. A single bank statement subpoena can reveal every digital wallet the debtor uses.

Some creditors now use specialized asset search services that can identify whether a phone number or email address is associated with accounts on Cash App, PayPal, Venmo, or other platforms. These services have become increasingly common as digital wallet usage has grown, and the platforms process hundreds of billions of dollars in transactions annually.

Exemptions Apply the Same Way

The same exemptions that protect funds in a traditional bank account apply to funds held in digital wallets. If the money in a Cash App or Venmo account can be traced to an exempt source, the debtor can assert the exemption through a Claim of Exemption filed with the court.

Federal benefits deposited into a digital wallet may trigger the automatic protections under 31 CFR Part 212, which requires financial institutions to review accounts for federal benefit deposits during the preceding two-month lookback period and protect those amounts from garnishment. Whether digital wallet platforms comply with this federal regulation in the same manner as traditional banks depends on the platform’s classification and its partner banks’ practices. The safer approach is to receive federal benefits through direct deposit into a traditional bank account where the 31 CFR Part 212 protections are well established.

Head of household wages deposited into a digital wallet retain their six-month exemption under § 222.11(3), provided the debtor can trace the deposits to exempt earnings. The tracing problem is the same as with any bank account: commingled funds are harder to protect than segregated funds. A debtor who uses Cash App for both exempt wage deposits and general spending makes it difficult to identify which dollars in the frozen balance came from exempt sources.

Funds held as tenants by the entireties generally require a jointly titled account between married spouses. Most digital wallet accounts are individual accounts, which means the tenants by the entireties exemption is unlikely to apply to funds held in Cash App, Venmo, or PayPal.

Digital Wallets Are Not Asset Protection

Keeping money in a digital wallet instead of a traditional bank account does not provide any meaningful protection from creditors. The funds are equally reachable through garnishment, and the debtor’s disclosure obligations during post-judgment discovery make concealment impractical.

Some debtors believe that moving funds between multiple digital platforms creates enough complexity to discourage creditors from pursuing collection. This strategy fails for several reasons. Transferring assets after a judgment or in anticipation of litigation can constitute a fraudulent transfer under Florida’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. The transfers create a paper trail that creditors can follow through discovery. And the cost of serving writs on additional platforms is minimal compared to the potential recovery.

Effective asset protection requires legal structures that are established before a claim arises, not last-minute transfers between accounts. Florida provides meaningful protections through statutory exemptions, account ownership structures like tenants by the entireties, and properly structured business entities. Debtors concerned about their exposure should focus on these established tools rather than relying on the false security of a digital wallet.