KB-2024-001295 - [2025] EWHC 3000 (KB)
Fecha: 14-Nov-2025
(b): The way the Property is held
(b): The way the Property is held
The Property is held in the name of the D2 and D3. Their accounts were set up at the instigation of D1 in August 2020, when it can be inferred that he needed to move cryptocurrency. The accounts were set up to make it appear as if D2 and D3 owned and controlled the Property, when in reality it was D1 who arranged for the Property to be transferred into these accounts, and he maintained control over them. D2 and D3 were merely “proxies” for D1. The obvious inference is that the use of proxies to open accounts was designed to conceal D1’s identity and his control of the cryptocurrency. I accept Mr Pons’ submission that this factor alone strongly suggests that unlawful conduct was involved.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The evidence
- The factual background in overview
- (ii): D2 and D3
- More detail on the source of the funds in the accounts
- The legal framework
- The procedural history prior to the 9 June 2025 hearing
- The Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on 18 March 2025
- Events between the CMC and 9 June 2025
- The 9 June 2025 hearing
- Proceeding in the absence of D2 and D3
- Service of the hearing papers on D1
- Events after the 9 June 2025 hearing
- The 11 November 2025 hearing
- Analysis and decision
- (ii): The location of the Property
- (iii): “Recoverable property”
- (a): The nature of the Property itself
- (b): The way the Property is held
- (c): Additional efforts undertaken to conceal the origin of the Property and its connection to the D1
- (d): The US offences
- (f): The lack of any evidence in response to the Claimant’s case
- Conclusions