Tim Thompson of Kangs Solicitors now outlines the civil remedies open to those who have been subjected to Crypto Fraud.
Our award-winning team of solicitors is nationally recognised for its work in financial investigations including cryptocurrency investigations and prosecutions.
Contact us | Kangs Civil and Criminal Fraud Solicitors
Our team is led by Hamraj Kang, a nationally recognised leader in the field of financial investigations.
We are here to assist you with these issues and our team of expert solicitors can be contacted for confidential and discrete advice as follows:
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/Cryptocurrencies 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 Crypto fraud.
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.
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? | Kangs Cryptoasset Solicitors
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: