Cryptocurrency Case Law Review

Scrutinising Cryptocurrency Tracing Evidence in the UK High Court (D’Aloia Part 2)

In this episode, the second chapter of the D'Aloia series, focusing on the evidentiary threshold required to prove funds reached a specific destination. Learn how a "subjective" tracing narrative led to a total dismissal and how to ensure your expert’s methodology is defensible under scrutiny. The Case Case Name: Fabrizio D'Aloia v Persons Unknown Category A and Others Neutral Citation: [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch) Jurisdiction: United Kingdom (England and Wales) Court: High Court of Justice, Business List (Chancery Division) Date: 12 September 2024 Full Judgement: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/2342.html Topics Explored - Deconstructing the cryptocurrency tracing failure to link the origins nd destination addresses. - The criticism of "cherry-picking" transactions to maximise recovery. - Methodological transparency: Why "investigative experience" is no substitute for a principled, reproducible method. Captura Cyber Captura Cyber brings clarity to cryptocurrency litigation by providing cryptocurrency expert reports and specialist cryptocurrency investigation for plaintiffs as well as expert rebuttal reports to challenge the methodology of opposing expert evidence for defendants. Their cryptocurrency expert witnesses - drawn from Law Enforcement, Academia, and Industry - ensure cryptocurrency expert reports are authoritative and admissible. Schedule a consultation today at www.capturacyber.com. Legal Disclaimer The Cryptocurrency Case Law Review podcast is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Listening to this podcast or accessing our show notes does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please note that the discussions featured in these episodes use synthetic, AI-generated voices to review and analyse past legal judgments. Always consult with qualified legal counsel regarding your specific case or jurisdiction. This production is a general summary of court proceedings and is not a substitute for specific professional advice on individual legal matters or any ongoing litigation.

Why Did the First Full Crypto-Fraud Trial in the UK Ultimately Fail? (The D’Aloia Series: Part 1)

The D’Aloia v. Persons Unknown judgment in the UK High Court is too significant for a single episode. Today, we begin a four-part exploration of the UK High Court’s first full trial involving a crypto-fraud claim. We start by examining the court’s findings in bridging the gap between equity and code, ruling that USDT attracts property rights. However, we also introduce the evidentiary threshold that the claimant failed to hit. This episode sets the stage for our upcoming sessions, where we will audit the tracing methodologies, the legal nature of property, and the high bar for establishing a constructive trust over digital assets. Legal Citation D’Aloia v. Persons Unknown & Others [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch) Link to Judgment https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/2342.html Topics Explored - The Case for a Series: Why the intersection of USDT property rights and failed forensics requires a granular four-part review. - Fact vs. Law: How a claimant can win the law but lose the facts. - Tracing Methodology Preview: An introduction to the "opaque" evidence that we will analyse step-by-step in Part 2. - Litigation Strategy for Partners: Identifying the "recoverability gap" early in the case lifecycle. - Tactical Warning for Associates: Why math, not just law, wins cases. Sponsor & Resources Captura Cyber brings clarity to cryptocurrency litigation by providing cryptocurrency expert reports and specialist cryptocurrency investigation for plaintiffs as well as expert rebuttal reports to challenge the methodology of opposing expert evidence for defendants. Their cryptocurrency expert witnesses - drawn from Law Enforcement, Academia, and Industry - ensure cryptocurrency expert reports are authoritative and admissible. Schedule a consultation today at capturacyber.com. Legal Disclaimer Disclaimer: The Cryptocurrency Case Law Review podcast is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Listening to this podcast or accessing our show notes does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please note that the discussions featured in these episodes use synthetic, AI-generated voices to review and analyse past legal judgments. Always consult with qualified legal counsel regarding your specific case or jurisdiction.

Can a 'Click-Wrap' Warning Discharge a VASP's Duty of Care?

How can a VASP prove it did "enough" to prevent a user from falling victim to a scam? This episode examines Xu v. NDAX Canada, a case in which expert evidence and internal risk metrics helped a VASP avoid an adverse judgment. We explore the "four-stage warning protocol" and discuss why a court described a plaintiff as the "author of her own misfortune." For litigation partners managing risk, and associates drafting defense motions, this case brief offers lessons in building a robust standard of care defense in the face of sophisticated crypto-asset fraud. About the Case Case Name: Xu v. NDAX Canada (2025 BCSC 2048) Jurisdiction: Canada Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia Date: April 2025 Read the Judgment https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/25/20/2025BCSC2048.htm Topics Explored - Deconstructing the plaintiff's failed negligence argument in the BC Supreme Court. - The evidentiary weight given to "Know Your Transaction" (KYT) scoring. - Proactive warnings vs. automated pop-ups: How did they contribute to legal "immunity"? - The danger of ignoring a customer’s "insistence" to trade during a scam. - Procedural tips for discovering and presenting internal VASP risk logs. This Episode was Sponsored by Captura Cyber Captura Cyber brings clarity to cryptocurrency litigation by providing cryptocurrency expert reports and specialist cryptocurrency investigation for plaintiffs as well as expert rebuttal reports to challenge the methodology of opposing expert evidence for defendants. Their cryptocurrency expert witnesses - drawn from Law Enforcement, Academia, and Industry - ensure cryptocurrency expert reports are authoritative and admissible.. Schedule a consultation at www.capturacyber.com Legal Disclaimer The Cryptocurrency Case Law Review podcast is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Listening to this podcast or accessing our show notes does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please note that the discussions featured in these episodes use synthetic, AI-generated voices to review and analyse past legal judgments. Always consult with qualified legal counsel regarding your specific case or jurisdiction.

Trailer - Cryptocurrency Case Law Review

When cryptocurrency evidence enters the courtroom, the side that controls the technical narrative wins. Cryptocurrency evidence means dealing with untested technology, millions of dollars on the line, and a legal environment being rewritten in real-time. Welcome to the Cryptocurrency Case Law Review the podcast for legal professionals engaged in cryptocurrency litigation. Law is practiced locally, but cryptocurrency is borderless. Whether you are an Associate drafting a freezing order or a Litigation Partner assessing the strategic risk of a cross-border dispute, this show is your competitive edge. What to Expect: In each episode, we extract key lessons from a recent crypto-related litigation, bringing you judgments from the USA, UK, Australia, Hong Kong, and beyond. Upcoming Topics Include: - Deconstructing failed blockchain tracing methodologies. - The specific evidentiary thresholds required for on-chain clustering. - Strategic and reputational risks of presenting unverified forensic data in court. - How global courts are ruling on freezing orders and stablecoin property rights. Hit "Follow" or "Subscribe" today so you don't miss our premiere episode.