Claims involving digital assets (including crypto assets) have become relatively common in the English Courts over the last five years and, as a result, the main areas of disagreement between the parties to those disputes are starting to emerge. A major theme is the methodology that should be applied to the tracing and following of digital assets.
This article considers two recent cases and the strategic impact they will have on future claims.
Analysing the movement of crypto assets
The process of analysing the movement of crypto assets, particularly in a fraud claim, creates an interesting tension between (i) the need to rely on technical expert evidence and (ii) the application of common law and equitable tracing and following rules and principles. The way in which a particular crypto asset behaves (including how transfers are technically made and/or where they are allocated from) may differ depending on the rules or constraints of the blockchain software on which it operates. In addition, the way certain exchanges operate and hold or administer transactions can create further complexity owing to the way that crypto assets are held or pooled. Therefore, what might appear to be a simple question of finding cryptocurrency necessarily involves the assistance of an expert who (likely with the aid of specialist software) can analyse the relevant transactions.
Many (but not all) of the orders and judgments obtained in these cases are uncontested, as claims are generally brought against unknown parties. However, two recent cases which were contested have thrust the issue of tracing methodology into the spotlight. In both cases, the claimants were the victims of fraud which resulted in them being induced to transfer crypto assets to a third party.
D'Aloia v Persons Unknown & Others (2024)
In D'Aloia v Persons Unknown & Others the Court gave judgment following the trial of issues between the claimant and a cryptocurrency exchange (Bitkub). Many of the causes of action were founded on the basis that a Bitkub wallet known as “82e6” had received the traceable proceeds of the claimant’s crypto assets. However, the Court ultimately determined that the claimant had failed to show that any of his funds were received in 82e6 due to errors in his expert’s tracing methodology.
The case considered what tracing methodologies may or may not be appropriate and the Court reiterated there was flexibility in determining this. The judge commented that the traditional tracing methods (‘first in first out’ (FIFO), pari passu distribution, and rolling charge) are not the only approaches open to a party as a matter of law. He held that: “in my view the law is not so limited and other methods, if methodologically sound and properly evidenced, are available to a party seeking to trace assets, at least in the context of claims arising out of fraud.”
In addition, the Court also highlighted the importance of taking care when trying to trace into a fund which contains assets belonging to other innocent third parties, saying: “there is no good reason why one innocent victim should be favoured over others. FIFO is considered acceptable because while it is arbitrary, it is equally arbitrary to all parties. Similarly, pari passu distribution does not favour one party over another. [The claimant expert’s] approach seeks to ignore the funds of other innocent victims, both in terms of pre-existing balances and incoming funds. It then seeks to trace into the largest sums, which improves the prospects of recovery by minimising leakage at each stage. But it seems to do so by favouring [the claimant] over other victims of fraud.”
Jones v Persons Unknown & Others (2025)
In Jones v Persons Unknown & Others the claimant obtained summary judgment which resulted in an order requiring a cryptocurrency exchange (Huobi) to deliver up around 89 Bitcoin to him. The claimant had contended at the time of the summary judgment hearing that he was able to trace his Bitcoin to a wallet controlled by Huobi. However, another cryptocurrency exchange (Kyrrex) made an application to set aside that judgment on the basis that, amongst other things, the cryptocurrency address which was subject to the original order had not received the Claimant’s Bitcoin, and it had in fact contained assets belonging to Kyrrex.
Kyrrex’s application was ultimately unsuccessful. However, it transpired that the original order was made on misleading expert evidence about whether the assets held in the wallet controlled by Huobi were traceable to the fraud perpetrated on the claimant, and whether the wallet was exclusively the subject of fraudulent transfers into it. The Court held that “it is probably the case that in both senses [the original judge] was actually misled”. However, the Court went on to say that to the extent that the original judge was misled, it was innocent and did not give rise to a right to set aside the judgment.
Analysis
It is expected that these issues will continue to arise over the coming years, particularly because fraudsters now use mixing services and other obfuscation techniques, which require a higher degree of reliance on specialist software to untangle. Tracing methodologies will continue to be a contested issue in claims involving digital assets. The key message is that any tracing methodology must be properly explained and justified, particularly so as to ensure that any methodology is fair to other innocent third parties.
With thanks to Chris Recker, Legal Director at Kingsley Napley and now partner at FBC Manby Bowdler in Birmingham.
Dispute Resolution Law Team
Victims of Fraud Series Part 4: Tracing issues in crypto assets cases
Claims involving digital assets (including crypto assets) have become relatively common in the English Courts over the last five years and, as a result, the main areas of disagreement between the parties to those disputes are starting to emerge. A major theme is the methodology that should be applied to the tracing and following of digital assets.
It was all a sham
Assets are typically placed in a trust for legitimate purposes, such as safeguarding wealth for future generations. However, arguments that a trust is in fact a “sham” created to hide the true ownership of assets often arise in the context of divorce litigation, bankruptcy/insolvency where a creditor seeks to argue that a trust is a pretence seeking to shield assets from creditors, or in estate disputes, where beneficiaries look to bring assets of the deceased back into an estate.
Victims of Fraud Series Part 3: “What can I do if the fraudster has disappeared?” - Persons Unknown Injunctions
Where the identity of a person or group of people responsible for a fraud is not known, the courts have recognised that it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to allow a claimant to issue proceedings and obtain an injunction (both interim and final) against such individuals. These injunctions are referred to as “persons unknown injunctions” and they have become increasingly prominent in recent years.
Landmark High Court ruling confirms availability of civil remedies for criminally sanctioned Companies Act breaches
Kingsley Napley is pleased to have acted for the successful claimants in proceedings before the High Court. The decision addresses a long-standing uncertainty in company law: if a provision of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 06”) carries a criminal penalty for breach, does that mean no civil remedy is available? The court’s ruling sheds light on how such provisions should be understood and what consequences companies and directors may face when compliance falls short.
Victims of Fraud Series Part 2: Using information orders to identify a fraudster and trace assets
One of the most alarming aspects of falling victim to fraud is knowing where to start. It is very common for a victim to know almost nothing about what has happened, except for the fact that they have been scammed and the assets have gone. However, there are options available even if you don’t know the identity of the fraudster and the assets have, apparently, disappeared.
Travelex liquidation: Court appoints additional conflict liquidators
In a judgment handed down today, the Court agreed to appoint two additional conflict liquidators from Grant Thornton in the Travelex liquidation following an application made by Kingsley Napley’s client Rawbank S.A. (“Rawbank”).
Rawbank is the largest bank in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”) and is an unsecured creditor of Travelex Bank Notes Ltd (“Travelex”) (part of the Travelex group of companies) for over £48m.
Victims of Fraud Series Part 1: Why Acting Fast Matters
In cases of fraud, the first 24 to 48 hours can determine whether stolen assets are recoverable or not. Fraudsters are often sophisticated, moving funds through multiple accounts, jurisdictions, or even converting them into cryptocurrency within hours. It is important to have a plan so that you understand the immediate steps you would take in the event of fraud, as delay can mean that your assets are dissipated and recovery becomes difficult.
Removal of trustees – factors a court will consider
We are seeing an increase in enquiries from both beneficiaries of trusts seeking the removal of trustees, and from trustees facing allegations that they have not complied with their duties. Sometimes it is clear that a matter has not been dealt with appropriately by a trustee, but on other occasions this stems from a general breakdown of the relationship between the parties.
The International Data Insights Report: Trends in international arbitration
Two recent publications, the Law Society’s International Data Insights Report 2025 and Queen Mary University’s (“QMU”) International Arbitration Survey, analyse statistics concerning international arbitration and reaffirm London’s leading role in global dispute resolution.
Practical tips for trustees dealing with breach of trust allegations
Being a trustee carries significant responsibilities and often involves managing high value assets and making complex decisions in the best interests of all the beneficiaries. While trustees generally strive to act with care and integrity, allegations of breach of trust can arise. Whilst such allegations can be stressful and complex, how trustees manage the trust and how they respond to allegations is crucial to maintaining trust, protecting the trust’s assets, and avoiding potential contentious proceedings.
The tips below should generally be adopted through the life of the trust and may avoid disputes arising in the first place.
Civil Fraud Case Update: Q3 2025
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of July - September 2025.
UAE agrees to share crypto information with international tax authorities
The United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) has joined in global efforts to improve transparency and compliance in the crypto sector by signing the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (MCAA) under the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF). The framework is expected to be rolled out in UAE in 2027, with the first automatic exchanges of information with other tax authorities such as HMRC taking place in 2028.
HMRC Covid scheme amnesty: action by 31 December 2025
The COVID pandemic was a difficult time for businesses, and many legitimately relied on financial support provided through government schemes to help them to survive and retain employees. However, it is estimated by HMRC that circa £10billion was also lost as a result of incorrect applications and outright fraud.
‘No win, no fee’ - are clients being hoodwinked?
At a time when a national broadcaster feels obliged to unpick (for the lawyer in us: alleged) misleading information from the leader of the free world, I almost choked on my breakfast when reading that we should also be concerned that some of us lawyers may be misleading the public too: 'No win, no fee' under fire: SRA vows to stop law firms hoodwinking consumers | Law Gazette Why now is a mystery; the term has been a feature of daytime TV advertising for decades!
Crypto reporting is changing: what this means for you - and HMRC
As the global regulatory landscape continues to evolve, two major frameworks are set to reshape how crypto-assets are reported: the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (“CARF”) and the European Union’s Directive on Administration Cooperation in taxation (“DAC8”).
Supreme Court clarifies VAT group rules in Prudential v HMRC
On 11 September 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a case that delves into the interaction between VAT group rules and the timing of taxable supplies. The decision has significant implications for businesses operating within VAT groups, particularly in relation to deferred consideration and success fees.
Rayner my parade! The importance of specialist advice.
The headlines this week around former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner are a reminder of the importance of taking the right advice from appropriate professionals and the potential consequences when such advice is called into question.
Civil Fraud case update Q2 2025
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of April - June 2025.
Oral evidence series Part 6: Is an honest recollection of events truly evidence?
Judicial commentary shows that judges are exceedingly aware of the unreliability of witnesses’ memory when considering evidence at trial. While judges may take differing views as to the reliance that ought to be placed on oral evidence as compared to contemporaneous documents, procedural safeguards are now in place to help strengthen the reliability of witness evidence, in CPR Practice Direction 57AC - Trial Witness Statements in the Business and Property Courts (“PD 57AC”).
Privilege update: Privy Council confirms the shareholder principle no longer applies in England & Wales
We have previously written about the potential death of the shareholder principle in our previous blogs. The recent Privy Council decision in Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd & Ors No 2 confirms what we suspected; the shareholder principle no longer exists in England & Wales.
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print