Research On Cross-Border Enforcement Of Freezing Orders Against Cryptocurrency Holdings
Case 1: AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)
Facts:
An insurer was targeted by hackers who demanded ransom in Bitcoin. The insured paid the ransom, but there was concern that the hackers might move or spend the bitcoins in ways that would make recovery impossible.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court recognized that Bitcoin is property under English law.
Since the hackers were unknown and could act quickly, the court allowed a proprietary injunction and a worldwide freezing order against “persons unknown.”
The court allowed alternative service, meaning the injunction could be served without knowing the defendant’s identity, to prevent dissipation.
Significance:
Established that unknown hackers could be restrained even if identities and locations were unknown.
Reinforced the idea that cryptocurrencies are legally “property” for purposes of injunctions.
Case 2: Fetch.ai Ltd & Another v Persons Unknown Category A & Others [2021] EWHC 2254 (Comm)
Facts:
Fetch.ai’s accounts on a crypto exchange were hacked. Fraudsters drained about US$2.6 million worth of crypto (BTC, USDT, BNB, and FET) into other wallets.
Court’s Reasoning:
Granted a proprietary injunction and a worldwide freezing order against those knowingly involved.
Ordered disclosure from Binance, the exchange, to identify wallet owners (Bankers Trust/Norwich Pharmacal style order).
Court classified defendants into categories:
Direct fraudsters
Intermediaries knowingly receiving the funds
Innocent recipients (only traceable funds could be claimed from them).
Allowed alternative service on persons unknown because identities were unavailable.
Significance:
Reinforced that crypto is property and can be frozen even when the owners are anonymous.
Demonstrated practical use of exchanges for enforcement.
Defined categories of defendants to balance fairness with asset protection.
Case 3: Vorotyntseva v Money-4 Ltd (T/A Nebus.com)
Facts:
A claimant deposited about £1.5 million in Bitcoin and Ethereum with a trading company. She feared the platform might misappropriate the assets.
Court’s Reasoning:
Court granted a freezing injunction ex parte (without notifying the defendant), restraining the company and its directors from dealing with the crypto assets.
The claimant demonstrated a real risk of dissipation, satisfying the conditions for a Mareva-type injunction.
Significance:
Showed that freezing orders are available against trading platforms, not just individuals.
Reinforced that crypto is property capable of being restrained by injunctions.
Case 4: ChainSwap Ltd v Persons Unknown (BVI Commercial Court, 2022)
Facts:
ChainSwap’s cross-chain bridge was hacked. Tokens were stolen and sent to a mixer, then to a crypto exchange in Croatia.
Court’s Reasoning:
Granted a worldwide freezing injunction against persons unknown controlling the stolen tokens.
Used a letter of request to Croatian authorities to obtain KYC information from the exchange to identify wallet owners.
Named defendants in terms of specific wallet addresses, adapting the injunction to blockchain technology.
Significance:
First BVI case to issue a “persons unknown” crypto freezing order.
Demonstrated cross-border cooperation using traditional legal tools.
Showed adaptation of legal remedies to blockchain realities.
Case 5: Joseph Keen Shing Law v Persons Unknown & Huobi Global Ltd (England, 2023)
Facts:
The claimant obtained a freezing order regarding assets held by unknown parties on Huobi exchange accounts outside England.
Court’s Reasoning:
Ordered the transfer of frozen crypto into England and Wales to enable enforcement of any subsequent judgment.
Emphasized the necessity of cooperation from the exchange for practical enforcement.
Significance:
Strong example of cross-border enforcement.
Shows that freezing orders alone may not suffice; assets may need to be moved to an enforceable jurisdiction.
Highlights the reliance on exchange cooperation for practical effect.
Case 6: Hong Kong — Tokenised Injunction Case (High Court, 2024)
Facts:
A Hong Kong company lost US$2.66 million in USDT to fraudsters who transferred funds to wallets on the Tron blockchain.
Court’s Reasoning:
Granted a global freezing injunction prohibiting disposal of the implicated crypto.
Innovatively tokenised the injunction: the order was recorded on the blockchain itself. Anyone interacting with the wallets would see a notice that the assets were frozen.
Prevented dissipation through on-chain transparency rather than relying solely on exchanges.
Significance:
First example of integrating a court order directly with blockchain technology.
Provides a public, self-enforcing warning to anyone attempting to interact with stolen wallets.
Highlights how courts are innovating to adapt traditional remedies to decentralized assets.
These six cases together show:
Recognition of crypto as property across multiple jurisdictions.
Use of worldwide freezing orders and ex parte injunctions.
Adaptation to blockchain realities (wallet addresses, tokenised injunctions).
Reliance on exchange cooperation and cross-border enforcement tools.
Categorization of defendants (fraudsters, intermediaries, innocent parties) for proportional relief.
RELATED Blog
comments