D'Aloia v Person Unknown & Ors [2022] EWHC 1723 (Ch) (24 June 2022)

D'Aloia v Person Unknown & Ors [2022] EWHC 1723 (Ch) (24 June 2022)

The claimant established a serious issue to be tried regarding fraudulent misappropriation of cryptocurrency, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment. The English court has jurisdiction as the claimant and assets were domiciled in England, and the damage occurred in England. Permission to serve out of jurisdiction and by alternative means, including NFT, is appropriate. Interim freezing and disclosure relief are justified to preserve assets and identify wrongdoers.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1723 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Fabrizio D'Aloia; Defendants: Persons Unknown & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Interim Application for Injunctive and Disclosure Relief / First Instance, Without Notice Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunctive and disclosure relief granted, permission to serve out of jurisdiction and by alternative means (including NFT) granted, except no substantive relief against Binance Markets Limited (third defendant).
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Disclosure Orders, Constructive Trusts, Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Alternative Service, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Unjust Enrichment
Civil Procedure Fraud Trusts Cryptocurrency Interim Injunctions Disclosure Orders Constructive Trusts Jurisdiction +4 more

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fabrizio D'Aloia

Claimant

Persons Unknown & Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Interim Application for Injunctive and Disclosure Relief / First Instance, Without Notice Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief and disclosure orders should be granted in respect of misappropriated cryptocurrency
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over persons unknown and foreign exchange defendants
  3. 3 Whether service out of the jurisdiction and by alternative means (including NFT) is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant established a serious issue to be tried regarding fraudulent misappropriation of cryptocurrency, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment. The English court has jurisdiction as the claimant and assets were domiciled in England, and the damage occurred in England. Permission to serve out of jurisdiction and by alternative means, including NFT, is appropriate. Interim freezing and disclosure relief are justified to preserve assets and identify wrongdoers.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctive and disclosure relief granted, permission to serve out of jurisdiction and by alternative means (including NFT) granted, except no substantive relief against Binance Markets Limited (third defendant).

Orders

  • Freezing injunction over relevant crypto assets granted against all defendants except Binance Markets Limited.
  • Bankers Trust disclosure orders granted against exchange defendants.