UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Phillip D’Costa, Richard Marshall, Sophie Newman and Harriet Campbell, Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP
Introduction Fraudsters will always find new ways to trick people out of their funds. While trends change over time, the fundamentals remain the same: deception, diversion, dissipation. Staying one step ahead of fraudsters, and anticipating and adapting to new problems, is crucial in fighting fraud. In this analysis of recent trends, we consider key legal developments in fraud litigation and look to the horizon to predict the future. With an eye to 2026 and beyond, the current trends troubling the courts and set to dominate international fraud litigation and asset recovery include: • how the courts manage crypto-assets and digital property; • the impact of AI-enabled fraud; • bank liability for failing to prevent fraud or retrieve funds; and • the scope of worldwide freezing orders. As fraud threats grow ever more interconnected and sophisticated – driven by significant advances in technology – it is critical to understand the emerg - ing risks and take swift legal action to remedy the consequences. Crypto-Assets: New Digital Property, New Rules? The English courts confirmed that digital assets and cryptocurrencies can constitute “property” back in 2019. Responding to new crypto-frauds by anony - mous wrongdoers, the courts granted worldwide freezing orders and enforced property rights, often against “persons unknown”. In granting those rem - edies, judges found that cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, digital assets and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) could be treated as property for the purposes of those remedies. Cementing that approach, on 2 December 2025, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 came into force. This legislation formally confirms that digital or elec - tronic assets can be recognisable as a third category of personal property. While the Act does not express - ly define crypto-assets as “property”, it permits the courts to develop their status through case law, which will delineate its boundaries and associated rights.
This forward-thinking and flexible approach through the common law and statute has allowed the English courts to respond to the rapidly evolving world of digi - tal fraud. Legal remedies for fraud and theft are now fully available in respect of digital currencies and other crypto-assets. It also allows for the inclusion of such property in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings. Recently, we have seen the first guidance from the courts on its implementation and the scope of its application. In Ping Fai Yuen v Fun Yung Li & Anor [2026] EWHC 532 (KB), Mr Yuen sought to recover Bit - coin valued at approximately GBP180 million, which he alleged was stolen by his ex-wife. The private key to the Bitcoin was contained in a “cold wallet” (ie, not connected to the internet) on a physical device. How - ever, anyone with access to his passwords could rec - reate the wallet on a separate device. Mr Yuen claimed he was covertly filmed on newly installed CCTV while entering the passwords by his wife, who then alleg - edly entered his accounts and stole GBP180 million worth of Bitcoin. But what claims could he bring for this crypto fraud and how did the court respond? Interestingly, Mr Yuen attempted to bring his claim for recovery in various ways, including damages for conversion (the tort of intentionally interfering with someone else’s personal property), conspiracy to commit conversion and tres - pass to goods, as well as a freezing order over the Bitcoin and a declaration of ownership. The judgment neatly explains how English law currently applies to crypto-assets. The court confirmed that while Bitcoin can constitute property under English law, it is not the kind of property which can be subject to a claim in conversion (because it is not (yet) a “tangible” asset that can be “interfered with”). The claimant’s claim in conversion was therefore struck out, with the court confirming conversion is presently limited only to tan - gible assets, not intangible or “third category” assets such as Bitcoin. The claimant’s claim in trespass, while not immediate - ly struck out, faced similar difficulties. Like the tort of conversion, trespass is defined by direct interference with tangible property. In this case, the court gave Mr Yuen time to amend his claim to argue that there had
372 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook