SIA Investment Industry v Pardus Wealth Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2774 (Comm)
Zi Wang v Graham Darby
10 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1394 (Comm)
High Court
A man was ordered by a court to list all his money. He left out a big chunk of cryptocurrency. An expert proved he had the missing money, and the man didn't explain it well. The court found him guilty of contempt of court.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Zi Wang (Claimant) brought a contempt application against Mr. Graham Darby (Defendant) for breaching a Freezing Injunction.
- •The injunction, dated August 2, 2021, required Mr. Darby to disclose all assets over £5,000, including cryptocurrency holdings.
- •Mr. Darby's disclosure letter omitted approximately 100 Bitcoin.
- •Mr. Darby's witness statement verified the incomplete disclosure letter.
- •Expert evidence from a blockchain forensics firm (CipherBlade) strongly indicated Mr. Darby's ownership of the 100 Bitcoin.
- •Mr. Darby did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
- •The court considered evidence from previous proceedings in reaching its decision.
Legal Principles
The burden of proving contempt of court rests on the applicant.
Case Law
Contempt must be proved to the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt).
Case Law
The court may reach conclusions on the balance of probabilities in relation to disputed evidence, which, when taken together, may satisfy the criminal standard.
Therium (UK) Holdings Limited v Brooke [2016] EWHC 2421 (Comm)
To establish contempt for breaching a court order, it must be shown: (i) knowledge of the order's terms; (ii) breach of the order; (iii) knowledge of the facts constituting the breach.
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm)
To establish contempt for making a false statement in a witness statement, it must be proved: (a) falsity of the statement; (b) interference with the course of justice; (c) lack of honest belief and knowledge of likely interference.
AXA Insurance UK Plc v Rossiter [2013] EWHC 3805 (QB)
Adverse inferences may be drawn from a party's silence in contempt proceedings.
Case Law (mentioned in relation to Therium case)
Outcomes
All three allegations of contempt were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The court accepted the expert evidence demonstrating Mr. Darby's ownership of the 100 Bitcoin and found his explanations for non-disclosure to be incredible and inconsistent. His silence further supported this conclusion.
Similar Cases
Ignite International Brands (UK) Limited & Anor v Inpero Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 220 (KB)
Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC & Ors v Abdalla Juma Majid Al Sari & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2624 (Comm)
Hadcliffe Properties Ltd v The Rind Foundation & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2587 (Ch)
Tonstate Group Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Edward Wojakovski
[2023] EWHC 3119 (Ch)