Since the first crypto asset claims emerged in the courts of England and Wales in around 2018, volumes have increased significantly, with a concentration of high-value disputes in recent years. Although relatively few cases have reached judgment (just 18% of crypto claims filed reach judgment according to Solomonic), reflecting a strong commercial incentive to settle, those that have generally favour claimants. As a result, the body of precedent remains limited, and key issues continue to be tested as crypto assets become more integrated in mainstream finance.
In this update, we highlight a number of recent decisions from the courts of England and Wales that have emerged since our previous crypto asset disputes updates (issue 1, issue 2 and issue 3), illustrating how the law continues to develop and how courts are deploying their powers to assist victims of crypto asset fraud.
Yuen v Li [2026] EWHC 532 (judgment)
Earlier this year, the High Court considered the availability of traditional causes of action following the alleged misappropriation of Bitcoin in the context of a marital breakdown. The claimant alleged that Bitcoin valued over £160 million was transferred without his consent from his cold wallet to 71 new addresses by his estranged wife and sister.
The key issue was whether the tort of conversion (i.e. when one person interferes with the personal property of another) could extend to crypto assets. Conversion protects possessory interests in tangible property, and, following OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, is confined to “things in possession”.
The claimant argued that the Property (Digital Assets) Act 2025 introduced a “third category” of property encompassing digital assets. In doing so, the claimant pointed to (i) the recommendations of a Law Commission report in 2023 and (ii) the position in other parts of the Commonwealth where this is already the default position, for example the New Zealand High Court found that digital assets should be protected as property as they share the key features of property (Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184).
Cotter J rejected that argument, holding that conversion remains limited to tangible property and cannot presently be extended to crypto assets, notwithstanding recent legislative developments.
The conversion claim was therefore struck out. However, the claimant was permitted to amend his pleadings to pursue alternative routes, including unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, causing loss by unlawful means, and proprietary restitution.
The decision draws a clear line: crypto assets may constitute property, but conversion does not apply. Claimants must instead rely on other, more adaptable causes of action.
Wilden v Persons Unknown & Huobi Global S.A [2026] EWHC 1355 (KB) (judgment)
In 2025, the claimant, who had initially purchased BTC in or around 2019 through the now-defunct EuropeFX and regarded those investments as lost, was contacted by “Brian Smith”, who claimed to be a UK-based investment adviser. Persuaded by Smith’s intricate knowledge of the claimant’s own cryptocurrency (which it is now believed he obtained from publicly available blockchain data or from purchased databases), the claimant was convinced that his lost BTC could be recovered by Smith. He subsequently transferred large sums equivalent to approximately EUR 2.6 million into accounts created by Smith but soon after, he lost access to these accounts, his own password and all contact with Smith.
The claimant obtained a without notice proprietary and worldwide freezing order against the fraudster, and a disclosure order against Huobi Global S.A, the owner of HXT who was believed to hold the stolen cryptocurrency and to know the identity of the account holder of the stolen funds.
At the return date, the court held that a freezing injunction against Smith was just and appropriate. Following D’Aloia v Persons Unknown and Ors [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch) the court found there was a good arguable case for the crypto assets to be treated as assets to which property rights can attach, the Claimant had a good arguable case that the elements of a claim in deceit were made out and the risk of dissipation was very high.
Of particular interest was the Claimant’s expert evidence. Smith had already tried to obscure the origin of the cryptocurrency by pooling transactions (an approach often used by fraudsters to conceal stolen assets), but in spite of this the Claimant’s expert evidence established that the stolen crypto assets could still be identified.
The extensive forensic tracing exercise that had been carried out indicated HTX held all stolen assets, amounting to 32.4572826 BTC, across 49 separate transactions. The experts were able to trace the Bitcoin through the blockchain and provided a report identifying the specific transfers to HTX, including the recipient address, transaction hash, the amount of Bitcoin transferred, and the date of each transfer. Despite the fraudsters’ attempts to pool transactions the experts could calculate the Claimants specific “share of loss” within those pooled transactions. This meant that although the total amount received by HTX exceeded the Claimant’s individual loss, the traced amount attributable to the Claimant’s transfers could be precisely limited to the exact amount of BTC he had transferred.
The court also ordered the disclosure order given (i) the Claimant had established his ownership in the BTC in relation to which he sought information; (ii) the likelihood Huobi would hold the information which would enable the Claimant to identify Smith; (iii) the order sought was specific and did not go any wider than necessary; and (iv) the claimant’s strong interest in recovering his stolen BTC outweighed any detriment to Huobi in complying with the order, and appropriate undertakings had been given. The court also noted HTX had shown “no willingness to assist in the return of the Claimant’s stolen cryptocurrency”, and were “dismissive and non-cooperative”.
Costs were awarded on the indemnity basis against both Smith and Huobi, which provides a note of warning to exchanges’ exposure to costs when they choose not to cooperate – the judge specifically said “Huobi might well have avoided any order on costs had it responded cooperatively to the Claimant’s requests for information, but its complete lack of engagement with the Claimant’s requests for information about Smith and its failure to assist with the return of the Claimant’s stolen cryptocurrency have been wholly unreasonable”.
Jones v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1823 (Comm) (judgment)
In Jones v Persons Unknown, the High Court examined the fallout from flawed crypto tracing evidence, and its impact on third parties and the limits of third-party relief.
The claimant, defrauded into transferring approximately £1.56 million in Bitcoin, obtained worldwide freezing and proprietary injunctions and summary judgment against “persons unknown” and the exchange Huobi. The freezing order was obtained on the basis of Mr Jones’ expert evidence which traced the stolen BTC to a wallet at Huobi (the “tHEL wallet”).
Huobi complied with the order by transferring Bitcoin to the claimant. It later emerged that the expert evidence was incorrect, and the tHEL wallet did not in fact contain assets traceable to Mr Jones, and instead belonged to a third party, Kyrrex Ltd.
Kyrrex applied under Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) 40.9, which states “A person who is not a party but who is directly affected by a judgment or order may apply to have the judgment or order set aside or varied.”, to set aside the judgment and deliver back the BTC to it. HHJ Pearce dismissed the application with “considerable sympathy for the position of Kyrrex”, holding that CPR 40.9 applies only where a judgment directly affects a party’s legal rights. Kyrrex’s loss arose from Huobi’s compliance with the order, not the judgment itself.
The case highlights three key points: (i) reliable expert evidence in crypto cases is essential; (ii) the narrow scope of CPR 40.9: indirect consequences of a judgment will not suffice to establish standing; and (iii) the need to move quickly – Kyrrex’s set aside application was brought two years from when Kyrrex first became aware of the matter, by which stage Huobi had been dissolved, so the Claimant’s ability to secure relief from any other source was limited, a point the court considered when assessing prejudice against the Claimant.
Smithers v Persons Unknown [2026] 3 LWUK 397
In Smithers v Persons Unknown, the High Court continued a freezing order obtained by claimants alleging that their crypto assets had been misappropriated as part of an international fraud scheme known as “Inferno Drainer”.
Of particular importance was the court’s approach to jurisdiction. It accepted that it was arguable that damage is suffered in England where the claimant is resident, rather than requiring a detailed analysis of the location of the crypto assets themselves.
The decision demonstrates the court’s pragmatic and flexible approach to jurisdiction and its continued willingness to grant effective interim relief in crypto fraud claims.
Our detailed analysis on the Smithers case can be found here: Recent guidance from the High Court on establishing jurisdiction in crypto-fraud claims – Smithers v Persons Unknown.
BSV Claims Ltd v Bittylicious Ltd & Others [2025] EWCA Civ 661 (judgment)
In BSV Claims Ltd v Bittylicious Ltd & Others, the Court of Appeal considered claims arising from the alleged anti-competitive delisting of the BSV cryptocurrency by major exchanges.
The key issue was whether claimants could recover damages beyond the immediate price impact of the delisting, including losses based on a “foregone growth effect”.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that claimants were required to mitigate their losses by disposing of their holdings once they knew, or ought to have known, of the alleged wrongdoing. Claims based on speculative future growth were therefore not recoverable.
By confirming that the principles of mitigation apply to the assessment of quantum in the crypto cases, the Court of Appeal has limited the ability of claimants to pursue inflated damages based on hypothetical market scenarios. The decision also makes clear that common law rules apply equally to disputes involving crypto, offering important guidance on how courts are likely to approach claims grounded in the inherently speculative nature of cryptocurrency markets.
A more detailed analysis on this case, can be found on our blog here: Court of Appeal Rejects Estimated £9 Billion Crypto Collective Action Based on Speculative BSV Growth.
Mooij v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 814 (Comm) (judgment)
Mooij v Persons Unknown addresses whether final relief can be granted against unidentified defendants in crypto fraud claims.
The claimant alleged that he had been defrauded into transferring assets, including approximately 20 Bitcoin, to a fraudulent platform. After obtaining interim relief and effecting alternative service, he sought summary judgment and continuation of freezing injunctions.
The principal question was whether the court had jurisdiction to grant final relief against defendants who remained unidentified. HHJ Russen KC held that it did. Once jurisdiction had been properly established, including through effective alternative service, the anonymity of the defendants did not prevent the court from granting judgment.
The court therefore granted summary judgment against the relevant categories of “persons unknown”, together with proprietary relief and continuation of the freezing injunctions.
In doing so, the court declined to follow Boonyaem v Persons Unknown and others [2023] EWHC 3180 (Comm), distinguishing it on the basis that in Mooij jurisdiction had been properly established through alternative service, including by NFT airdrop into the target wallet.
The case confirms that anonymity is not, in itself, a bar to obtaining final relief. Where jurisdiction is established, the court may grant both monetary and proprietary remedies, even if enforcement remains challenging in practice.
And looking to the future…
- In late June 2026 almost 1,700 UK investors have filed a group action claim against Binance Holdings and its founder Changpeng Zhao in the UK High Courts (CL-2026-000362: Sutas and others v Binance Holdings Ltd and others) alleging that the company unlawfully sold unauthorised cryptocurrency derivatives to UK consumers from 2019 onwards, in breach of FSMA. There is limited information currently available on the claim, but it will no doubt be followed with interest by investors and platforms alike.
- On 19 March 2026, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce published its report on the control of digital assets. The report provides practical guidance on how control operates in relation to digital assets. It is expressly non-binding and does not displace statute or case law but will provide assistance for courts and practitioners navigating issues such as custody, transfer and disputes involving digital assets, and will likely impact how we see courts deciding crypto disputes in the future.
- Finally, the UK Financial Conduct Authority published a regulatory framework for crypto assets on 30 June 2026. The rules will take full effect on 25 October 2027, and will require firms serving UK traders to obtain authorisation and adhere to standards similar to traditional financial services. Although a regulatory framework, this is likely to impact how crypto disputes are framed in claims brought in England and Wales, so watch this space for how this area will develop.
For more details on our work in this area: Crypto Asset Disputes.