Insights on international precedents, cryptocurrency case law, and investigative strategy.
In the landmark D’Aloia v Persons Unknown judgment, the UK High Court established that stablecoins like USDT can attract property rights, yet the claim against the exchange still failed. The court dismissed the case because the expert’s opaque tracing methodology could not be audited or clearly explained. This ruling serves
In D’Aloia v Persons Unknown, the UK High Court dismissed a claim against a cryptocurrency exchange because the claimant’s expert evidence was deemed unreliable [J.264]. The court rejected the expert’s “black box” approach, ruling that a failure to articulate a clear, coherent cryptocurrency tracing methodology was fatal to the claim.
In Xu v. NDAX Canada, the BC Supreme Court dismissed a plaintiff’s claim, finding the exchange had satisfied its duty of care by providing multiple, explicit warnings that the customer was “likely ‘being scammed'”. The ruling demonstrated that while a duty of care may have existed, it could be fully
The final judgement in D’Aloia v Persons Unknown addressed several complex issues, including a failed constructive trust claim. This analysis, however, focuses on one foundational question the court resolved: is USD Tether (USDT) property?
The UK High Court found that the stablecoin USDT is property under English law, a critical
The High Court ruling in D’Aloia v. Persons Unknown contained an important point of clarity for litigators in the United Kingdom: the equitable remedy of a constructive trust is available for asset recovery involving crypto assets. The court explicitly accepted that a constructive trust arose against the fraudulent recipients, the