Freezing Cryptoassets: Guidance from the High Court in Spring 2026

The High Court recently handed down judgment in Smithers & Anor v Persons Unknown [2026] 3 WLUK 397, providing further guidance on the approach to freezing relief in claims involving cryptoasset fraud and confirming the courts’ willingness to adopt a pragmatic approach to jurisdiction in cases involving digital assets.

The claim was brought by the owners of cryptocurrency assets which had been misappropriated as a result of an alleged fraud. The claimants advanced a cause of action in unlawful means conspiracy against the defendants, who were unknown persons alleged to have participated in the fraudulent scheme. The application before the court arose on the return date of an ex parte freezing order. The claimants sought continuation of the freezing order pending trial.

 

Good arguable case on the merits

In considering whether to continue the freezing order, the court was required to assess whether the claimants had established a good arguable case on the merits. The judge was satisfied that this threshold was met. In reaching that conclusion, the court placed particular emphasis on expert evidence adduced by the claimants addressing the mechanics of the alleged fraud, which implicated the respondents and suggested a fraud which amounted to a conspiracy, causing loss to the claimants.

 

Risk of dissipation

The court was also satisfied that there was a real risk of dissipation of assets if the freezing order was not continued. In doing so, the judge had regard to the inherent characteristics of cryptoassets, in particular their ease of transfer and the practical difficulties associated with tracing and recovering such assets once they have been moved. The judgment is a welcome acknowledgment by the judiciary of the distinctive nature of digital assets, further confirming that they must be regarded as fundamentally different from traditional assets.

 

Location of cryptoassets and jurisdictional gateways

The judge held that there was at least a good arguable case that, where cryptoassets are taken from an individual resident in England and Wales, the damage is sustained within England and Wales for the purposes of satisfying the jurisdictional gateways in Practice Direction 6B, paragraph 3.1, in a tort claim.

This reasoning is significant as it addresses a gap in the law arising from the fact that cryptoassets are not readily locatable. By confirming that the damage was sustained within the jurisdiction of England and Wales, and anchoring the location of cryptoassets within the jurisdiction, the court has provided a workable framework which:

1. Prevents fraudsters from exploiting jurisdictional uncertainty arising from the decentralised nature of cryptoassets to evade accountability; and
2. Ensures that victims of crypto fraud are able to seek redress in the courts of their home jurisdiction, rather than being required to litigate in a foreign forum.

 

Key takeaways

This decision reinforces several important points for parties involved in cryptoassets related disputes:

• The English courts remain willing to grant and continue freezing relief in cases involving complex digital fraud, where supported by appropriate expert and witness evidence.
• The characteristics of cryptoassets may support findings of a real risk of dissipation.
• The courts will adopt a pragmatic approach to issues of jurisdiction, focusing on substance rather than technical concepts of asset location.

The judgment provides further assurance that the English courts remain an attractive forum for victims of cryptoassets fraud.

For further guidance, please contact the authors of this insight or the wider DLA Piper team below.