In brief
- The English courts have shown considerable adaptability in responding to the procedural challenges of cryptocurrency fraud. Norwich Pharmacal relief has proved critical in enabling victims to obtain KYC data from exchanges, bridging the gap between traceable on-chain activity and the pseudonymous individuals behind it.
- This adaptability was demonstrated through the introduction of the specific gateway for serving information orders out of the jurisdiction in October 2022. More recently, the Commercial Court's decision in Williams v Nest Services Limited went further still, permitting service on future persons unknown, reducing procedural duplication and cost.
- Building on these developments, the Law Commission's 2025 consultation paper on digital assets proposes free-standing information orders, which would allow victims to obtain disclosure from intermediaries without being required to commence (or intend to commence) proceedings in England and Wales.
- Key questions remain as to the form of implementation and whether the approach taken in Williams would be applied in the context of free-standing information orders, but the direction of travel is clear: English law will continue to adapt to meet the challenges of cross-border cryptoasset fraud.
Introduction
The challenges facing victims of cryptocurrency fraud are well-documented. Blockchain analysis can trace the movement of cryptoassets with precision, but the individuals controlling those assets almost invariably remain hidden behind pseudonymous wallets and offshore exchanges. To bridge this gap, victims need access to the KYC data held by exchanges, linking wallet addresses to real-world identities and enabling claims to be pleaded with sufficient particularity.
Norwich Pharmacal relief - which enables victims to obtain information from third parties 'innocently mixed up in the wrongdoing' - has therefore proved pivotal. In the context of cryptocurrency fraud, the relevant third parties are typically the exchanges through which misappropriated assets have passed. The English legal system has recognised the centrality of this form of relief to victims' access to justice and has been quick to adapt the procedural framework accordingly.
Jurisdictional gateways for information orders
A clear example of this adaptability was the introduction in October 2022 of the specific gateway for service of information orders out of the jurisdiction. This provided, for the first time, a clear jurisdictional basis for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders out of the jurisdiction, resolving the previous anomaly (and surrounding uncertainty) under which Bankers Trust Orders could be served out of the jurisdiction whereas Norwich Pharmacal Orders could not.
Given that cryptocurrency markets are inherently cross-border, and that the exchanges central to fraud investigations are frequently located offshore, the new jurisdictional gateway was a necessary development. It ensured that English procedural remedies could reach the infrastructure through which digital assets flow, keeping the remedy fit for purpose in an increasingly global market.
Williams v Nest Services Limited: orders against future persons unknown
The Commercial Court's decision in Williams v Nest Services Limited [2025] EWHC 1409 (Comm) marked a further significant step, again demonstrating the English courts' willingness to adapt established procedural tools to the realities of cryptoasset fraud.
In Williams, the Commercial Court confirmed that Norwich Pharmacal Orders may extend to future persons unknown, being recipients of cryptocurrency who are not yet identifiable but who will emerge through ongoing disclosure. HHJ Keyser concluded that the order could be served on third parties falling into the future persons unknown category once they had been identified, removing the requirement to return to court for variations as additional parties are uncovered.
This decision reflects the reality of how cryptoasset fraud cases unfold in practice: disclosure from one exchange frequently reveals new wallet addresses linked to further intermediaries, each of which may hold relevant KYC data. By permitting service on newly identified recipients without repeated applications, the court reduced procedural duplication and cost - a particularly important consideration in cases where losses may be more modest in value. The decision also demonstrates judicial sensitivity to the "hot pursuit" nature of cryptocurrency tracing, where speed materially affects recovery prospects.
The Law Commission proposals: free-standing information orders
These developments are welcome, but a significant limitation remains. The gateway for service out of information orders requires the claimant to have commenced, or to intend to commence, proceedings in England and Wales. Since the identity of the ultimate defendant is typically unknown at the point of applying for a Norwich Pharmacal Order, claimants face obvious difficulties in identifying where they will bring substantive proceedings. This has, in turn, given rise to arguably strained and inconsistent judicial decisions on questions of jurisdiction in the context of service out applications for the underlying claims.
The Law Commission has acknowledged this "significant limitation" in its consultation paper on Digital Assets and (Electronic) Trade Documents in Private International Law, published last year. The paper sets out provisional proposals for free-standing information orders, recognising the reality that claimants are seeking assistance in the investigative stage of proceedings, requesting the court's assistance in discovering the identity of the defendant and the appropriate claim to plead against them.
If implemented, this proposal would enable courts to make standalone orders compelling intermediaries - such as crypto exchanges - to disclose identifying information, allowing victims to make an informed decision about the most appropriate way to proceed before committing to substantive proceedings.
The proposed threshold test would require the court to be satisfied that: (i) there is a "case of a certain strength" – this would be similar to the Niedersachsen "more than barely capable of serious argument" test but is intentionally formulated in a distinct way; (ii) the relief sought is necessary in order to bring a claim or seek redress; (iii) there is no other court in which the claimant could reasonably bring the application; and (iv) there is a connection to England and Wales, such as the claimant's habitual residence, domicile or nationality.
The Commission recognises that the proposed new form of order is exceptional but considers that it responds to a clear need in the context of crypto litigation and is therefore necessary in the interest of justice.
In our view, the proposal is to be welcomed. It would offer a clear and principled route to assistance for victims at the early investigative stages of a matter, without requiring them to identify a jurisdiction for substantive proceedings before they know the identity of the defendant. That said, the proposal is not without its limitations. Enforcement against non-compliant respondents located abroad will remain difficult, and there will inevitably be cases in which exchanges are unable to comply due to conflicting obligations under local data protection or confidentiality regimes. However, both risks already exist under the current framework.
Looking ahead
A number of questions remain open. If the Law Commission's proposals are adopted, it will be important to see whether the courts are willing to extend the Williams approach - permitting orders against future persons unknown - to free-standing information orders. Given the same practical rationale applies, there is a strong argument that they should. The form of implementation also remains to be determined: the Law Commission's consultation paper leaves open whether free-standing information orders would be introduced by statute, through amendments to the CPR, or developed incrementally at common law, each of which carries different implications for the scope and flexibility of the remedy.
The consultation period closed in September 2025 and the final report is awaited. Whatever form the proposals ultimately take, the direction of travel is clear: the English courts and the Law Commission alike recognise that effective procedural tools for investigating cryptoasset fraud are essential to ensuring that victims have meaningful access to justice. The pace of development in this area suggests that English law will continue to adapt, maintaining its position at the forefront of cross-border crypto fraud litigation.