ABSTRACT
In proposing the controversial Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill at its second reading in the House of Commons, the Minister of State for the Ministry of Justice suggested that it ‘will help drive economic growth by encouraging innovation, attracting investment and reinforcing the UK’s position as a global hub for digital finances and technology’ (Hansard HC Deb, 16 July 2025). Whatever the wisdom of this policy (cf Stevens (2023) 139 LQR 628), the English courts are already a global hub in terms of cryptoasset recovery litigation. This is in part because the common law, unlike many civilian systems or even mixed ones such as Scots law (Ripley et al (2025) Edin LR 175), permit actions to be brought against persons unknown. Partly for this reason, civil cryptoasset recovery lawsuits are almost exclusively the province of common law jurisdictions (but see developments in the Netherlands: Hupkes CS Advocaten, 23 March 2025 at https://www.hupkesadvocaten.nl/en/recovering-stolen-crypto-the-final-steps/), with England and Wales ‘enjoying’ the lion’s share of cases. Whether sufficient safeguards have been put in place for such actions, however, may now be questioned in light of Jones v Persons Unknown (No 2) [2025] EWHC 1823 (Comm).
Low, Kelvin FK, Other People’s Crypto: the Perils of Proprietary Litigation against Persons Unknown (November 14, 2025). Forthcoming Law Quarterly Review.
Leave a Reply