Tracing cryptoassets in the English High Court: what Wilden means for recovery claims

The decision in Stephen Wilden v Person Unknown and Huobi Global S.A. [2026] EWHC 1355 (KB) confirms that the English courts will continue to order the use of proprietary freezing injunctions and third-party disclosure orders to support victims of digital asset fraud, even where the assets have been deliberately mixed. 

The fraud

The claimant, an individual, had previously purchased Bitcoin through the EuropeFX platform, which later ceased operating.

In December 2025, he was contacted by an individual using the alias “Brian Smith”, who claimed to be able to help recover those lost assets. Relying on that representation, the claimant was persuaded to set up a new wallet and to transfer substantial sums of Bitcoin to wallets controlled by the fraudster.

Between December 2025 and January 2026, the claimant transferred approximately €2.6 million (c.32.46 BTC) through a series of transactions across multiple exchanges to those wallets. He was subsequently locked out and the fraudster disappeared.

The claim

Following the fraud, the claimant sought relief in the High Court. On 17 March 2026, he obtained, without notice, a proprietary and worldwide freezing injunction against the unknown fraudster, together with a disclosure order against the operator of the exchange, where the Bitcoin was believed to have been transferred.

The claimant’s lawyers contacted the relevant exchange requesting that it freeze the assets and provide account information, but the evidence before the Court was that assistance was not forthcoming.

The application then came before the court on the return date, where the question was whether the freezing and disclosure orders should be continued pending trial.

Tracing the cryptoassets: the evidence

The key point in Wilden is the quality of the claimant’s tracing evidence. The claimant’s forensic investigators carried out a blockchain analysis using the recognised LIFO (Last-In-First-Out) method, tracing 100% of the lost Bitcoin through 49 transactions to infrastructure associated with the relevant exchange.

What made the evidence persuasive was its precision. Rather than simply identifying a likely destination, the experts reconstructed the full transaction chain: from the claimant’s exchange wallets, through intermediary “scam wallets”, and on to the relevant exchange. Crucially, they also dealt with pooling and mixing. The perpetrators had combined the claimant’s assets with other funds, but the experts isolated the claimant’s specific “share of loss”, showing that his Bitcoin remained identifiable.

The level of granularity mattered. The expert report included a transaction-by-transaction account of the relevant transfers, identifying recipient addresses, transaction hashes, values and dates. That enabled the court to conclude that the claimant’s assets remained identifiable despite deliberate attempts to obscure their origin.

The court’s decision on freezing and disclosure relief

Freezing injunction: The Deputy High Court Judge applied the familiar three-part test: 

1. a good arguable case on the merits,
2. a real risk of dissipation of assets, and
3. that it is just and appropriate as a matter of discretion to grant relief. 

Following D’Aloia v Persons Unknown, the Judge accepted there is a good arguable case that cryptoassets are property to which property rights can attach, and that the remedy of following survives mixing where the identity of the asset is preserved. The claimant had a good arguable case in deceit. The risk of dissipation was very high, given the pooling transactions and because the exchange was not engaging.

Disclosure order: The court applied the Bankers Trust jurisdiction, as distilled into five principles by Warby J in Kyriakou v Christie Manson & Woods, which were that:

1. there were good grounds to conclude that the assets belonged to the claimant,
2. there was a real prospect that the information sought would help locate or preserve the assets,
3. the order is no wider than necessary,
4. the claimant’s interest outweighs any detriment to the respondent, and
5. there were suitable undertakings to (a) pay the expenses of the respondent in complying with the order, (b) compensate the respondent in damages should loss be suffered, and (c) use the information obtained for the purpose of tracing the assets are given. 

The Judge considered that the five principles were satisfied. Notably, the claimant’s limited means did not defeat the value of his undertakings: relief should not be refused solely because a claimant cannot give a financially valuable cross-undertaking (Allen & Ors v Jambo Holdings), particularly where the fraud itself stripped him of his savings.

Service out: The court granted permission to serve out of the jurisdiction under CPR PD 6B paragraph 3.1(25), the gateway for information orders against non-parties, and to serve by alternative means (in this case by email) pursuant to CPR 6.15 given the exchange’s opaque address. 

Costs: Both the fraudster and the exchange operator were ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of £60,993.91 on the indemnity basis. The exchange might have escaped a costs order had it cooperated, but the Judge considered that – on the facts - its failure to engage was unreasonable.

Why it matters

Together with cases such as D’Aloia and Jones v Persons Unknown, Wilden forms part of a developing line of authority on cryptoasset tracing and interim relief. It shows what effective tracing looks like in practice: a recognised methodology, a clear transaction trail and a disciplined attribution of pooled funds. The case also illustrates the continued willingness of the English courts to adapt traditional proprietary remedies to the realities of cryptoasset fraud.

For fraud victims, the message is encouraging: mixing is not a magic shield against tracing. For exchanges, the costs outcome is a pointed reminder that stonewalling a legitimate request for information carries a price.

Cases referred to:

Stephen Wilden v Person Unknown and Huobi Global S.A. [2026] EWHC 1355 (KB)

D’Aloia v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch)

Bankers Trust Co v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274

Kyriakou v Christie Manson & Woods [2017] EWHC 487 (QB)

Allen & Ors v Jambo Holdings [1980] 1 WLR 1252 (CA)

Jones v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1823 (Comm)