UK Law and Practice Contributed by: Simon Bushell and Gareth Keillor, Seladore Legal
pled”. Accordingly, they will only be awarded in cases where the wrongdoing is particularly egregious, and even then, they are likely to be reasonably modest in value. 7.2 Laws to Protect “Banking Secrecy” There is no specific banking secrecy regime in the United Kingdom. While English law provides that banks owe a general duty of confidentiality to their customers, there are a growing number of exceptions to this duty based on efforts to prevent money laun - dering, the funding of terrorism, tax evasion and so on. In any event, in instances of fraud, English law pro - vides avenues by which a wronged party may seek to obtain information from third-party banks (see the discussion of third-party disclosure and Norwich Pharmacal orders set out in 2.3 Obtaining Disclosure of Documents and Evidence From Third Parties ). Where sufficient evidence of fraudulent activity exists, these avenues are unlikely to be impeded by general considerations such as a bank’s duty of confidence to its customers. 7.3 Crypto-Assets Although there had been a legal debate for a number of years as to whether cryptocurrency assets were property (rather than information), which had signifi - cant impact on the potential legal remedies for the loss of crypto-assets, the position is now settled. In December 2025, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 came into force which establishes that digital assets are a third type of property (in addition to chose in action and chose in possession) and are recognised as legal property.
The law on the location of a crypto-asset (relevant for determining whether a court has jurisdiction over the dispute) is, however, in its infancy, although case law appears to be reaching a consensus that the relevant location is the place where the person or company that owns the coin or token is domiciled. The English courts have also demonstrated willing - ness to be responsive in cases of crypto-asset fraud, which are steadily on the rise (albeit not in line with the massive increase in crypto-asset usage), recognising that “time is of the essence” when facing potentially rapid dissipation of the proceeds of fraud. The par - ticular issue in cases of crypto-asset fraud is that it is difficult to establish the identity and location of the wrongdoers. In such cases, the English courts are able to grant: • a Bankers Trust order against a cryptocurrency exchange (including one located outside England and Wales) to obtain information about the relevant transactions with a view to identifying the hackers (see 2.3 Obtaining Disclosure of Documents and Evidence From Third Parties ); or • a proprietary injunction against “persons unknown”, provided the relief was limited to assets which the individuals knew or ought reasonably to have known did not belong to them (see 2.8 Claims Against “Unknown” Fraudsters ). If the individuals can be identified, it is also possible to obtain freezing relief as against those individuals’ dealings with the proceeds (see 1.7 Prevention of Defendants Dissipating or Secreting Assets ).
369 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook