Call us 0333 370 4333
15/07/20

The Civil Crossover with Cryptocurrency Fraud

Share

Tim Thompson of Kangs Solicitors now outlines the civil remedies open to those who have been subjected to Cryptocurrency Fraud.

Our award-winning team of solicitors is nationally recognised for its work in financial investigations including cryptocurrency investigations and prosecutions.

Recent Developments | Cryptocurrency Solicitors

The courts have recently provided some helpful clarity on the legal status of cryptoassets.

Recent High Court cases have confirmed that civil remedies may be exercised in the recovery of misappropriated cryptoassets.

The Legal Status of Cryptoassets | Civil Litigation Solicitors

On 18 November 2019, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce of the Law Society’s LawTech Delivery Panel (‘UKJT’) stated that cryptoassets are “sufficiently permanent or stable to be treated as property” under English law.

Five key characteristics of Cryptoassets were identified with the fundamental feature being that of proprietorship and the fact that cryptoassets are capable of being owned.

As a result of the UKJT’s statement, the High Court has acknowledged that Cryptoassets / Cryptocurrency can be owned resulting in various civil remedies being granted to those who have sought them.  

Civil Remedies in Crypoasset Cases | Kangs High Court Solicitors

Asset Preservation Order (APO)

An APO is an Order made by the Court designed to preserve assets to prevent a party from removing assets located in England and Wales or dealing with assets wherever they are located.

An APO is a helpful tool when the respondent’s identity is unknown, which is often the case in Cryptocurrency fraud.

Freezing Injunction

A Freezing Injunction is a Court order which prohibits a party from disposing of or dealing with its assets.

The applicant for a Freezing Injunction, will have to satisfy the Court that:

  • there an existing cause of action
  • there is a good arguable case
  • the respondent has assets
  • there is a real risk of dissipation.

Unlike an Application for an APO, the respondent has to be identified therefore, if in a Cryptoasset fraud, the respondent is known, a Freezing Injunction may be more appropriate.

Proprietary Injunctions

A Proprietary Injunction prevents a person from dealing with assets in which the claimant has a proprietary interest and is very similar to that of a Freezing Injunction.

However, a Proprietary Injunction is particularly effective if the applicant can show that there is an arguable case that all of the respondent’s assets belong to him. It is not necessary to show that there is a risk of dissipation.

Who Can I Contact For Help?

Our civil and criminal teams are accustomed to supporting clients seeking advice of either a civil or criminal nature concerning an APO, Freezing Order or Injunctive Proceedings.

We welcome enquiries by telephone or email.

We provide an initial no obligation consultation from our offices in London, Birmingham and Manchester.

Alternatively, we provide initial consultations by telephone or video conferencing.

Please feel free to contact:

Hamraj Kang

Email Hamraj

07976 258171

020 7936 6396

0121 449 9888

Stuart Southall

Email Stuart

0121 449 9888

020 7936 6396

0161 817 5020

Tim Thompson

Email Tim

0121 449 9888

020 7936 6396

0161 817 5020

Civil Fraud, Financial Investigations, POCA
In addition to Confiscation Proceedings, which are designed to recover assets representing the proceeds of crime following a criminal conviction, Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) provides enforcement agencies, such as the National Crime Agency (NCA), the Serious Fraud Agency (SFO) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the power to recover […]
05/10/26
Civil Fraud, Commercial Disputes, Financial Investigations
In a previous article, ‘Understanding Civil Fraud | Common Categories Explained’ we outlined the key differences between civil and criminal fraud, and highlighted common civil fraud claims that are regularly pursued through civil courts. In this article, we focus on two further civil fraud claims in which a third party may become accountable for another […]
01/10/26
Commercial Disputes, Intellectual Property
In this article Stuart Southall, Partner at KANGS discusses recent court decisions both in the UK and US on the issue of whether intellectual property rights can apply to Artificial Intelligence (AI). In February 2026 the Supreme Court handed down its Judgment in Emotional Perception AI Limited-v-Comptroller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2026] UKSC […]
24/09/26

Get in touch

Need legal assistance? Contact our experienced team for prompt and professional support.
Your privacy is important to us and all details you share will be kept confidential. Please note we do not accept legal aid instructions.

Send an enquiry

    This form is protected by Cloudfare Turnstile.
    Privacy Policy.

    Old map of Birmingham
    0333 370 4333