Key Facts
- •Mr. D'Aloia alleges he was a victim of a cryptocurrency scam, losing approximately £2.5m in USDT.
- •His claim against Binance settled, and his claim against Aux Cayes Fintech was struck out.
- •The main focus of the trial was Mr. D'Aloia's claim against Bitkub (Sixth Defendant), a cryptocurrency exchange.
- •Mr. D'Aloia claimed Bitkub held his USDT on constructive trust.
- •The central issue was whether Mr. D'Aloia's USDT could be traced to a specific wallet (82e6) held with Bitkub.
- •Expert blockchain analysis was presented, but its reliability was heavily contested.
- •Bitkub raised defenses of good faith purchase for value without notice, change of position, and ministerial receipt.
Legal Principles
Tracing and Following
Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102
Unjust Enrichment
Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221
Constructive Trust
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington Borough Council [1996] AC 669
Knowing Receipt
Byers v Saudi National Bank [2023] UKSC 51
Good Faith Change of Position
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548
Ministerial Receipt
Portman Building Society v Hamlyn Taylor Neck [1998] 4 All ER 207
Cryptoassets as Property
Tulip Trading v Van der Laan [2023] EWCA Civ 83
Common Law Tracing through Mixed Funds
Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson [1991] Ch 547
Pleading Requirements
PD 16 paragraph 8.2; Chancery Guide paragraph 4.7; Boake Allen Ltd v HMRC [2006] EWCA Civ 25
Outcomes
Claim against Bitkub dismissed.
The claimant failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that any of his USDT reached the Bitkub wallet.
USDT is considered property under English law, but not as a chose in action or chose in possession; it's a distinct form of property.
It meets the criteria in National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth for definability, identifiability, capability of assumption by third parties, and some degree of permanence.
Bitkub's defenses (good faith change of position, ministerial receipt) failed.
Bitkub had actual notice of suspicious activity on Ms. Hlangpan's account and failed to take adequate steps to investigate.
Mr. Moore's expert evidence was deemed unreliable.
His methodology was inconsistent, lacked transparency, and produced contradictory results. He failed to adhere to the rules of evidence and disclosure.