Johannes Nicolaas Lambertus Mooij v Persons Unknown & Ors

A court may grant final judgment against “persons unknown” where proceedings have been validly served by an authorised alternative method and the defendants have jurisdiction but do not identify themselves. The conceptual difficulties concerning service on unidentifiable defendants at the inception of proceedings do not prevent judgment after effective service. The court should distinguish proprietary relief concerning followable digital assets from non-proprietary monetary relief. Bitcoin may be treated as property, supporting delivery-up where the claimant establishes a superior proprietary interest. Relief against receiving or custodial defendants should be limited to assets shown by the evidence to have reached their control.

The claimant alleged that fraudsters induced him to transfer approximately 20.34 bitcoin and €330,000. The bitcoin was followed through blockchain transactions to a wallet associated with Huobi-related defendants. The euros could not be traced to those defendants.

The claimant applied for summary judgment against the remaining defendants and continuation of a freezing injunction previously granted by HHJ Pelling KC. The defendants did not engage with the proceedings. The court considered the approach in Boonyaem v Persons Unknown and others concerning final judgment against unidentified fraudsters, together with authorities on persons unknown, service and the proprietary status of bitcoin.

1. Summary judgment. The evidence established that the claimant had been defrauded and that no defendant had shown any real prospect of successfully defending the claim. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 24, subject to the proper form of relief.
2. Persons unknown. The court declined to follow the approach in Boonyaem insofar as it treated the continuing anonymity of alleged fraudsters as preventing final judgment. The distinction drawn there between anonymous and unidentifiable defendants was principally concerned with whether service and jurisdiction could be established at the inception of proceedings. Here, alternative service had been expressly authorised, including service by NFT airdrop and filing documents at court. The defendants were therefore subject to the court’s jurisdiction, whether or not they chose to identify themselves.
3. Relief against defendants 1 and 2. Final judgment was granted against the alleged fraudsters and beneficiaries for the claimant’s bitcoin and €330,000. Possible enforcement difficulties caused by their anonymity did not justify refusing judgment.
4. Relief against Huobi-related defendants. The court treated bitcoin as property, applying the reasoning in Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV. The claimant was entitled to delivery up of followable bitcoin in which he had the superior proprietary interest. The evidence did not establish that the €330,000, or any part of it, had reached the Huobi-related defendants, so the monetary claim against them was adjourned.
5. Freezing injunction and costs. The freezing injunction was continued, including against the innocent-receiver defendants, without requiring a cross-undertaking in damages. Costs were summarily assessed at £106,528.94, approached on the indemnity basis.

First-instance decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate history. It records that HHJ Pelling KC had granted the earlier freezing injunction on 14 December 2023.