English courts are increasingly hearing cross-border crypto fraud disputes, relying on Gateway 25 to grant disclosure orders even against overseas respondents. The Law Commission has proposed new free-standing information orders to help victims at an early stage, while flexible equitable remedies and interim relief powers make England and Wales an attractive forum for digital asset litigation.
“We live in a world where borders are ceasing to exist.”
Friday 5th September 2025, The Rt Hon Sir John Mummery PC KC, former Lord Justice of Appeal and President of the Intelligence Services Tribunal, 42nd Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime.
The rise of digital asset disputes in England and Wales
There has been a significant increase in digital asset disputes being litigated in England and Wales. This has brought into sharp focus the growing challenge of cross-border jurisdictional hurdles which, if not addressed properly, can derail a claim from the outset.
The Law Commission’s Paper on Private International Law[1] suggests that emerging technologies, namely wholly decentralised models of distributed ledger technology (DLT), disrupt traditional geographic and territorial notions underpinning jurisdictional rules, because DLT systems can exist across borders simultaneously, making it difficult to identify a single, territorially defined jurisdiction. Whether this is true is very debatable, but in our experience, this is not the reason that jurisdictional gateway debates are being engaged in the English High Court.
We are seeing significant increase in cases coming to the High Courts of England and Wales, where both the applicant(s) and respondent(s) are based overseas. We consider the jurisdictional considerations when seeking injunctive relief, specifically in respect of Information Orders, which are critical to digital asset disputes.
The Court’s power to grant such orders is provided in section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981[2], which allows the High Court to grant an injunction in cases where it is just and convenient to do so. The Court’s jurisdiction is broad.
The Court must firstly determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. In England and Wales, jurisdiction is generally determined by referencing the established “jurisdictional gateways” under the Civil Procedure Rules, which allow service of proceedings outside the jurisdiction when certain criteria are met (e.g., a contract governed by English law, a tort committed within the jurisdiction, or property located in England and Wales).
Gateway 25 and Disclosure Orders in crypto fraud
As a starting point, the Court has an ability to grant Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust orders against respondents outside the jurisdiction under gateway 25 to CPR PD6B, as confirmed in Fetch.ai Ltd v Persons Unknown Category A. Further commentary is provided on this in the White Book at 6HJ.41 (Vol 1/p.372) and Dicey & Morris at S11-239F.
When relying on gateway 25, the seminal consideration for the Court in crypto frauds is whether the Applicant intends to commence proceedings in England and Wales. In circumstances where the purpose of the application is to obtain information that would otherwise not be available, this will carry an intention of (directly or indirectly) identifying the wrongdoer, as well as identifying where they are domiciled. The logic therefore follows that at the infancy of proceedings; it may not be known what jurisdiction(s) any onward defendant will be placed in. The authors therefore argue for, and have seen in practice, that the threshold for considering whether an Applicant intends to commence proceedings in England and Wales, is low. Common reasons applicants will come to the UK are:
- The fraudulent crypto investment platform is said to be based in the UK or is a “.co.uk” address.
- The mobile phone application used by the fraudster was created in the UK.
- The victim was contacted by individuals using UK telephone numbers; and
- The fraudsters had English accents.
Of course, many of these fraudulent crypto investment platforms do not originate from England but impersonate English people or create English corporate vehicles to carry out the fraud. Despite this, if at the time of making the application, the Applicant has a genuine belief that the most appropriate forum for the onward proceedings is England and Wales, then it is right to say that the ‘intention to commence’ threshold in Gateway 25 is met, and in turn England and Wales is the appropriate forum.
This is something that the Law Commission has raised in their recent consultation on private international law. The consultation paper goes so far as to say that the established principles of international jurisdiction hinder, rather than promote, access to justice. These concerns are particularised in two principal ways:
- “the general consensus surrounding what constitutes an adequate link to England and Wales sufficient for our courts to assert international jurisdiction in civil and commercial proceedings; and
- the premise that certain types of relief against non-parties are unavailable unless substantive proceedings will definitely be commenced in England and Wales against an identified defendant to final judgment.”[3]
Clearly, the word “definitely” raises the bar, and we have not seen the Court’s apply the test this high in practice: the Applicant must show an arguable intention, not a concrete certainty, of proceedings in England and Wales.
Parallel foreign proceedings
Where there are concurrent, or prospective, parallel foreign proceedings afoot, the mere existence or possibility of foreign proceedings should not preclude the Court from granting relief. Section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (as extended by article 2 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Interim Relief) Order 1997 (CJJAO) and as amended by regulation 33, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/479) empowers the Court to award interim relief where proceedings have been, or are to be, commenced in another jurisdiction. This was confirmed by Mr Justice Zacaroli in Blue Power Group Sarl v Eni Norge AS [2018] EWHC 3588 (Ch)[4].
When considering whether the Court will grant an injunction where there are connected foreign proceedings, a two-stage approach is to be adopted:
- Do the facts warrant the relief sought if the substantive proceedings had been brought in England?
- If so, does the fact that the Court has no jurisdiction apart from the section make it inexpedient to grant relief under section 25(2) of the CJJA 1982[5]. Here, the relevant jurisdiction gateway is PD 6B.3.1(5).
Notwithstanding this, the nature of the Court’s powers to grant injunctive relief are equitable in nature and in turn do not lend themselves to be interpreted with rigidity. As equitable remedies, injunctions:
- Can be used proactively, including in novel procedural circumstances;
- Are not constrained by rigid procedural categories;[6] and
- Are focused on the need to do justice and protect the litigant’s equitable rights.
This flexibility is confirmed in Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] UKSC 47 which extended the powers to unidentified / newcomer class of persons. In Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd [2021] UKPC 24, the Court confirmed these powers were not contingent on there being an interlinking cause of action against the Respondent.
The Law Commission’s Reform Proposals
The Law Commission proposal to assist victims is to empower English Courts to grant a “free -standing information order to assist a claimant at the initial investigations stage of the proceedings”. This would then allow victims to assess the viability of the claim and consider the facts at hand without starting a formal claim. The cost is substantially lower than the fees one can expect to incur presently, and without the risk associated with formal litigation.
The proposed test for granting one of these orders is provided at paragraph 4.92 within the consultation paper, and summarised as:
- The case has a certain strength, in that the claimant must evidence a wrong-doing;
- The disclosure of this information is necessary to allow the victim to bring legal proceedings or other redress;
- The court must be satisfied that there is no other court in which the claimant could reasonably bring the application for disclosure;
- The court must be satisfied there is an adequate link to England and or Wales. For example, that the victim resides, domiciles or is a national here. This might also include (but is not given as an example in the paper) where a scam investment website says the company is registered in England.
In practice, we have seen little problem with Gateway 25, and it has shown itself to be flexibly interpreted when required. However, this new test should lower the obstacles to recourse for victims. We are concerned with stage 3 of this new test; in most cases, crypto assets are laundered by the fraudsters to a variety of exchanges around the world, in Cambodia, Seychelles, El Salvador, and arguably, the Claimant could reasonably bring the application for disclosure there, which would not help UK victims.
Conclusion – towards justice in a borderless world.
Where a litigant’s equitable rights have been infringed, England and Wales can present itself as an attractive jurisdiction to seek redress after suffering a wrongdoing. The Court continues to show itself to be flexible in assisting victims and deploying its powers with international effect. We must decide now though how best to empower the Court to help victims in a world where borders are ceasing to exist.
[1] Digital assets and (electronic) trade documents in private international law including s72 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882
[2] Similar provisions are granted to the County Court under section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984
[3] See paragraph 4.38
[4] At [30]
[5] See Refco Inc v Eastern Trading Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 159;
[6] Wolverhampton at [95], Convoy at [101]
