Johannes Nicolaas Lambertus Mooij v Persons Unknown & Ors
[2024] EWHC 814 (Comm)
Tippawan Boonyaem v Persons Unknown Category (A) & Ors
14 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3180 (Comm)
High Court
Someone scammed a woman out of cryptocurrency. The court found the people who took the money liable, but needs more information to find the main scammer. The court froze the scammer's accounts and ordered them to pay back the money.
Key Facts
- •Tippawan Boonyaem (Claimant) was defrauded into investing in Tether Tokens (USDT) through a scheme involving INGFX Limited and unknown individuals.
- •USDT 425,836.62 was transferred from the Claimant's Bitkub Thailand wallet to wallets controlled by the defendants.
- •USDT 383,547 was traced to specific wallet addresses at cryptocurrency exchanges.
- •The third defendant, INGFX Limited, is a UK-registered company with alleged connections to fraudulent activity.
- •Defendants 1 and 2 are sued as 'persons unknown' due to their unidentified nature.
- •The Claimant seeks summary judgment, continuation of freezing injunctions, and recovery of traceable proceeds.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment can be granted if the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
CPR Part 24.3
When property is obtained by fraud, equity imposes a constructive trust on the fraudulent recipient; the property is recoverable and traceable.
Westdeutsche Bank v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669
Cryptoassets are capable of being things to which personal property rights can relate.
Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV [2023] EWCA Civ 83
Tracing requires coordination between the depletion of the trust fund and the acquisition of the asset.
The Federal Republic of Brazil v Durant International Corporation [2015] UKPC 35
Proceedings can be commenced against 'persons unknown' in certain circumstances.
Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] UKSC 6
A bona fide purchase for value would defeat a claim to trace.
Akers v Samba Financial Group [2017] UKSC 6
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted against the second and third defendants for the claimant's proprietary claim.
The defendants did not acknowledge service or file a defense, and the evidence supports the claimant's claim of fraud.
Summary judgment adjourned for the claimant's claims for equitable compensation and damages.
Difficulties remain in identifying the first defendants and particularizing the claimant's loss.
Proprietary injunction continued against the second and third defendants.
To protect the claimant's property.
Non-proprietary freezing injunction continued against the second and third defendants.
Sufficient arguable case and risk of dissipation.
No injunction against the first defendants.
Insufficient identification of the first defendants.
Disclosure orders repeated against the second and third defendants.
Hope for compliance.
Permission granted to amend Bryan J's Order to include omitted service gateways.
To reflect Bryan J's intent.
Service authorized on the second defendant via alternative methods.
Likely to reach 'Persons Unknown Category B'.
Claimant's costs summarily assessed at £70,000, payable by the second and third defendants.
Claimant's success and dishonest conduct of defendants.