Vorotyntseva v MONEY-4 Ltd (t/a nebeus.com) & Ors [2018] EWHC 2596 (Ch) (28 September 2018)

Vorotyntseva v MONEY-4 Ltd (t/a nebeus.com) & Ors [2018] EWHC 2596 (Ch) (28 September 2018)

On the evidence, there is a real risk of dissipation of the claimant's cryptocurrency assets; freezing order is justified and should extend to both the company and its directors.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2596 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Elena Vorotyntseva; Defendant/respondent: Money-4 Limited t/a Nebeus.com; Defendant/respondent: Sergey Romanovskiy; Defendant/respondent: Konstantin Zaripov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Freezing Order / Ex Parte Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Freezing order granted against company and individual directors.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Cryptocurrency, Proprietary Injunction, Cross Undertaking in Damages
Civil Procedure Property Law Banking and Finance Freezing Injunction Cryptocurrency Proprietary Injunction Cross Undertaking in Damages

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elena Vorotyntseva

Claimant/applicant

Money-4 Limited t/a Nebeus.com

Defendant/respondent

Sergey Romanovskiy

Defendant/respondent

Konstantin Zaripov

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Freezing Order / Ex Parte Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether the freezing order should extend to individual directors as well as the company
  3. 3 Whether cryptocurrency can be subject to a proprietary injunction

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, there is a real risk of dissipation of the claimant's cryptocurrency assets; freezing order is justified and should extend to both the company and its directors.

Court Disposition

Freezing order granted against company and individual directors.

Orders

  • Respondents prohibited from disposing of specified quantities of Bitcoin and Ethereum belonging to claimant.
  • Claimant to fortify cross-undertaking in damages by payment into escrow or court.