Schedule a Consultation

Crypto Evidence in the Courtroom

Expert perspectives on narratives from courts globally.

World map highlighting the UK in red, representing the jurisdiction of the English High Court ruling on USDT as property.

D’Aloia v Persons Unknown Judgment Analysis: Implications for Tracing and VASP Liability

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 as a guide for litigators regarding the standards of evidence: establishing liability generally requires forensic evidence that is transparent, replicable, and defensible.

Read More »
World map highlighting the UK in red, representing the jurisdiction of the English High Court ruling on USDT as property.

Cryptocurrency Tracing Methodology Scrutinised: D’Aloia v Persons Unknown

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. The judgment set a precedent for litigators to be mindful that their expert’s methodology is transparent, mathematically consistent, and capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny.

Read More »
Map of the world highlighting British Columbia, Canada, which set a legal precedent in Xu v. NDAX on how crypto exchanges discharge their duty of care.

How Crypto Exchanges Discharge Duty of Care: Xu v. NDAX Canada

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 discharged through robust, documented interventions. This case established that proactive warnings—including phone calls and risk disclosures—were powerful evidence in building a defensibility argument.

Read More »
World map highlighting the UK in red, representing the jurisdiction of the English High Court ruling on USDT as property.

Is USDT Property Under English Law? D’Aloia v Persons Unknown

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 development. This ruling confirms that crypto-assets like stablecoins are capable of being the subject of proprietary remedies, including tracing and constructive trusts.

Read More »
World map highlighting the UK in red, representing the jurisdiction of the English High Court ruling on USDT as property.

Constructive Trust Claims Against Cryptocurrency Exchanges: D’Aloia v Persons Unknown

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 Persons Unknown, but the claim ultimately failed against the VASP, Bitkub. This outcome emphasised that the legal principles for a constructive trust in cryptocurrency are sound. Yet, the key challenge for recovery lies in meeting the technical burden of precise blockchain evidence.

Read More »