AA v Persons Unknown
2019[2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)
- Matter type
- Ransomware payment, proprietary injunction
- Evidence sources
- On-chain transactionsExchange recordsInsurer payment records
- Facts
- An insurer paid a Bitcoin ransom after a ransomware attack on a Canadian insured. Tracing followed the coins to an address held at a UK-linked exchange.
- Outcome
- The court held cryptocurrency is property capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction, and granted the injunction over the traced coins. The starting point for every later English crypto claim.
Ion Science Ltd v Persons Unknown
2020unreported, Comm Ct, 21 December 2020
- Matter type
- Investment fraud, tracing and disclosure
- Evidence sources
- On-chain transactionsExchange KYC recordsCommunications with the fraudsters
- Facts
- An investor was induced to transfer Bitcoin for supposed initial coin offerings. The funds passed through several addresses to exchanges outside the jurisdiction.
- Outcome
- Proprietary and freezing injunctions granted, with Bankers Trust disclosure against foreign exchanges and permission to serve out. Established that the lex situs of a crypto asset is where the owner is domiciled.
Fetch.ai Ltd v Persons Unknown
2021[2021] EWHC 2254 (Comm)
- Matter type
- Account compromise, exchange disclosure
- Evidence sources
- Exchange account logsOn-chain transactionsTrading records
- Facts
- Attackers accessed a Binance account and sold crypto assets at an undervalue to wallets they controlled, then withdrew the proceeds.
- Outcome
- Proprietary and freezing relief granted against persons unknown, with a Bankers Trust order against the exchange. Confirmed relief can follow assets held in accounts as well as private wallets.
Osbourne v Persons Unknown and Ozone Networks
2022[2022] EWHC 1021 (Comm)
- Matter type
- Stolen non-fungible tokens
- Evidence sources
- Marketplace recordsWallet addressesOn-chain transfers
- Facts
- Two NFTs were taken from the claimant's wallet and moved to accounts on the OpenSea marketplace.
- Outcome
- The court treated NFTs as property for the purposes of interim relief and granted injunctions plus disclosure against the marketplace, extending AA v Persons Unknown beyond fungible tokens.
LMN v Bitflyer Holdings and others
2022[2022] EWHC 2954 (Comm)
- Matter type
- Exchange hack, third-party disclosure
- Evidence sources
- Exchange deposit recordsKYC recordsOn-chain transfers
- Facts
- A crypto exchange was hacked and the proceeds were traced into accounts at several foreign exchange groups.
- Outcome
- Bankers Trust and Norwich Pharmacal relief granted against overseas exchange entities, with the court willing to order disclosure abroad where the traced funds could otherwise disappear.
Jones v Persons Unknown
2022[2022] EWHC 2543 (Comm)
- Matter type
- Fraud, summary judgment and recovery
- Evidence sources
- On-chain transactionsExchange recordsFraudulent website evidence
- Facts
- The claimant was defrauded of Bitcoin through a fake investment platform, with the coins traced to an address controlled through Huobi.
- Outcome
- Summary judgment against persons unknown, with the exchange holding the traced Bitcoin ordered to deliver it up on constructive trust. One of the first English crypto claims taken through to final recovery.
D'Aloia v Persons Unknown
2022 to 2024[2022] EWHC 2342 (Ch) and [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch)
- Matter type
- Fraud, service by NFT and expert tracing
- Evidence sources
- On-chain transactionsExchange KYC recordsExpert tracing analysis
- Facts
- The claimant was induced to transfer USDT and USDC to a clone brokerage site. The funds were moved through a series of addresses and into exchange accounts.
- Outcome
- Permission granted to serve proceedings by airdropped NFT. At trial the claim largely failed on the evidence, with the court criticising the tracing methodology and expert independence, which is why attribution and Part 35 compliance now decide these cases.
Tulip Trading Ltd v van der Laan and others
2023[2023] EWCA Civ 83
- Matter type
- Developer duties, access to lost assets
- Evidence sources
- Protocol source codeCorrespondenceAlleged hack evidence
- Facts
- The claimant said private keys to a large Bitcoin holding were stolen in a hack and asked core developers to patch the software to restore access.
- Outcome
- The Court of Appeal held there was a serious issue to be tried on whether developers owe fiduciary or tortious duties to owners, allowing the claim to proceed. Relevant wherever recovery depends on someone other than the wrongdoer.
