Director of Public Prosecutions v O'Connor & Ors [2025] EWHC 3000 (KB) (14 November 2025)

Director of Public Prosecutions v O'Connor & Ors [2025] EWHC 3000 (KB) (14 November 2025)

The court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cryptocurrency in the specified accounts was obtained through unlawful conduct, including computer hacking, fraud, and money laundering, and is therefore recoverable property under POCA. The use of proxies, crypto-mixers, and the lack of any lawful explanation or evidence from the Defendants supported this conclusion. The procedural requirements for service and participation were met or properly dispensed with. The court was required to make a civil recovery order vesting the property in the trustee for civil recovery.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3000 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; First Defendant: Joseph James O'Connor; Second Defendant: Keir Holme; Third Defendant: Kyle Lomax
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Recovery Order (poca) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Civil recovery order granted in full
Legal Topics
Cryptocurrency as Property, Money Laundering, Unlawful Conduct, Service of Process, International Asset Recovery
Civil Recovery Proceeds of Crime Asset Forfeiture Cryptocurrency as Property Money Laundering Unlawful Conduct Service of Process International Asset Recovery

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Joseph James O'Connor

First Defendant

Keir Holme

Second Defendant

Kyle Lomax

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Recovery Order (poca) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cryptocurrency held in specified accounts is 'recoverable property' under POCA
  2. 2 Whether the court should make a civil recovery order under s.266 POCA
  3. 3 Whether procedural requirements for service and participation were met

Ratio Decidendi

The court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cryptocurrency in the specified accounts was obtained through unlawful conduct, including computer hacking, fraud, and money laundering, and is therefore recoverable property under POCA. The use of proxies, crypto-mixers, and the lack of any lawful explanation or evidence from the Defendants supported this conclusion. The procedural requirements for service and participation were met or properly dispensed with. The court was required to make a civil recovery order vesting the property in the trustee for civil recovery.

Court Disposition

Civil recovery order granted in full

Orders

  • Civil recovery order made under POCA s.266 in respect of the specified cryptocurrency accounts
  • Christine Bartlett of Richard Long & Co. appointed as trustee for civil recovery