Wayne Murry v Persons Unknown & Anor

A proprietary claim may be maintained to recover stolen cryptocurrency, or traceable proceeds, where the assets remain identifiable through conventional tracing principles. The property is treated as subject to a constructive trust unless acquired by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

At the joinder stage, the court applies a low threshold. Joinder is appropriate where there is a realistically arguable evidential basis connecting the proposed defendant with the assets or relevant wallet. Freezing and proprietary orders may continue against newly named defendants where the risk of dissipation remains and there has been no material change in circumstances.

The claimant alleged the wholesale theft of cryptocurrency from his wallets and sought proprietary relief, tracing relief, joinder of persons previously within a Persons Unknown category, and continuation of proprietary and worldwide freezing orders.

The applications concerned Mr Orogun and Simple Systems LLC. The evidence indicated that some assets had moved through intermediary addresses and an exchange account identified as belonging to Simple Systems LLC, while other assets had apparently reached wallets controlled by Mr Orogun. The court also considered practical arrangements protecting Mr Orogun’s ability to obtain advice and withdraw limited sums for living purposes.

1. Joinder of Mr Orogun. The application was granted. The claim was realistically arguable on the available evidence because cryptocurrency stolen from the claimant had apparently been transferred into wallets controlled by, or associated with, Mr Orogun. The claim was proprietary and depended on tracing the assets or their proceeds. Unless a bona fide purchaser for value without notice defence were established, the assets remained subject to a constructive trust and recoverable under conventional English tracing principles.
2. Joinder of Simple Systems LLC. The company was joined as a named defendant. Approximately 4,782,000 TDROP assets had allegedly been transferred from the claimant’s Ledger wallet through an intermediary address to a Gate.io wallet identified as owned by Simple Systems LLC. Although the company’s control and beneficial ownership remained unresolved, there was no evidence presently suggesting that it could be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
3. Freezing and proprietary orders. The continuation of the proprietary freezing order and the worldwide freezing order was appropriate. The newly named defendants had previously been subject to the proceedings through the Persons Unknown category. The evidential threshold was satisfied, the risk of dissipation continued, and no material change of circumstances justified revisiting the earlier orders.
4. Procedural safeguards. Mr Orogun was given 28 days to provide written confirmation of assets and could use a witness statement rather than an affidavit. The claimant’s solicitors were directed to inform Revolut that he could withdraw up to £500 per week. Each respondent retained liberty to apply to vary or discharge the orders. Non-compliance, if proved to the criminal standard, could result in contempt sanctions.

First-instance decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate history.