Tippawan Boonyaem v Persons Unknown Category (A) & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3180 (Comm)
Johannes Nicolaas Lambertus Mooij v Persons Unknown & Ors
14 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 814 (Comm)
High Court
Someone stole Bitcoin and money. The court ruled against the thieves and companies holding the stolen Bitcoin, even though they didn't show up to court. The judge explained that, even without knowing their names, the court could make them pay because they had been properly notified of the case. The court also froze their assets to make sure they could pay up if they are found.
Key Facts
- •Johannes Mooij claimed he was defrauded of 20.34 Bitcoin and €330,000.
- •The fraud involved a bogus trading platform called MegaMarkets.
- •The Bitcoin was traced to a Huobi-controlled wallet.
- •The €330,000 was untraceable.
- •Defendants 5 and 6 (Binance Holdings Limited and Megamarkets Trading Limited) had discontinued the claim.
- •The remaining defendants included 'Persons Unknown' (fraudsters and beneficiaries) and entities within the Huobi ecosystem.
- •Defendants did not appear in court.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
CPR Part 24
Jurisdiction over 'persons unknown'.
Boonyaem v Persons Unknown and others [2023] EWHC 3180 (Comm), Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] UKSC 6, Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47
Treatment of Bitcoin as property.
Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV [2023] EWCA Civ
Alternative service and jurisdiction.
AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC (Comm) 3556
Freezing injunctions (pre- and post-judgment).
None explicitly cited, but discussed throughout the judgment.
Enforcement of judgments against 'persons unknown'.
Jones v Persons Unknown and Huobi Global Ltd [2022] 2543
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted against Defendants 1 and 2 ('Persons Unknown' – fraudsters and beneficiaries) for the Bitcoin and €330,000.
Unchallenged evidence of fraud; alternative service deemed effective; jurisdiction established despite lack of appearance; while enforcement might be difficult, it's not a bar to judgment.
Summary judgment granted against Defendants 4 and 7-11 (Huobi entities) for the traceable Bitcoin.
Evidence shows Bitcoin ended up in a Huobi-controlled wallet; no evidence linking them to the €330,000.
Continuation of freezing injunction against all defendants except Defendant 3 (innocent receivers).
Injunction is post-judgment; no competing claims from Defendant 3; cross-undertaking in damages not required.
Costs summarily assessed at £106,528.94.
Indemnity basis used; no reason to discount.