How Courts Are Granting Injunctions Against Anonymous Crypto Wallet Holders and Exchanges in the UK, Singapore, and South Africa

Tubrazy Shahid
Apr 15
4 min read

As the cryptocurrency ecosystem continues to evolve, so too does the legal framework surrounding it. One of the most notable recent developments is how courts in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, and South Africa are responding to cases involving anonymous crypto wallet holders and unregulated exchanges—by granting injunctions and disclosure orders, even when the identities of the wrongdoers are unknown.

This legal trend is reshaping the landscape for victims of crypto fraud, financial crime, and asset misappropriation. It also signals a growing willingness by courts to bridge the gap between traditional legal remedies and decentralized technology.

Anonymous Wallets Are No Longer Legally Invisible

Cryptocurrencies were designed to allow peer-to-peer transactions without centralized intermediaries. While this feature offers autonomy, it also poses a major challenge when it comes to fraud enforcement and asset recovery.

However, recent legal precedents show that anonymity no longer provides immunity. Courts have now established that an anonymous crypto wallet address can be treated as a “person” under common law, enabling claimants to pursue justice even without knowing the real identity of the wallet holder.

Key Jurisdictional Developments

🇬🇧 United Kingdom

In multiple cases—including the well-cited AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)—UK courts have:

Recognized cryptocurrency as property under English law.
Granted freezing injunctions (Mareva injunctions) against “persons unknown” operating anonymous wallets.
Ordered crypto exchanges to disclose information relating to wallet ownership and transaction history.

Injunctions were granted even when the wallets were hosted outside the UK, provided there was a sufficient link to the jurisdiction (e.g., the victim or the initial fraud occurred in the UK).

🇸🇬 Singapore

Singaporean courts have adopted a similar proactive stance. In the 2022 case of CLM v CLN and Others [2022] SGHC 46, the court:

Recognized crypto as property capable of being held on trust.
Granted an interim proprietary injunction against unknown defendants.
Ordered exchanges and other third parties to assist with tracing and identification.

Singapore has become a global hub for blockchain innovation, and the courts are balancing that growth with strong investor protection mechanisms.

🇿🇦 South Africa

South Africa, while not as advanced in crypto regulation as the UK or Singapore, has made significant progress in using civil litigation tools against wallet holders.

Courts have granted preservation orders and interdicts freezing crypto held in local or offshore exchanges.
Judges have acknowledged that crypto is an asset and can be subjected to court control, just like a bank account or physical property.

In some cases, courts have instructed forensic blockchain experts to assist in identifying transaction paths and connecting wallet addresses to individuals or companies.

Legal Tools Being Used

Across these jurisdictions, the following legal instruments are being successfully deployed:

Freezing Injunctions: Preventing further transfer of crypto assets.
Norwich Pharmacal Orders: Compelling third parties (like exchanges or service providers) to disclose information that can help identify wrongdoers.
Proprietary Injunctions: Asserting legal ownership of specific assets—even if those assets are held in anonymous wallets.
Disclosure Orders: Forcing intermediaries to assist in tracing funds, even in cross-border contexts.

Why This Matters

These legal developments are crucial for victims of:

Crypto hacks and exchange breaches
Phishing and impersonation scams
ICO or token project fraud
Investment and trading scheme manipulation

They also create a strong deterrent for those who believe that anonymity will protect them from liability or prosecution.

Moreover, they show that courts do not require full identification of a defendant in order to issue enforceable orders. With the help of blockchain analytics and proper legal framing, claimants can initiate proceedings, trace funds, and recover assets across borders—even when facing anonymous actors.

Looking Ahead

These precedents signal an important evolution in global legal thinking:

Anonymity is not impunity.
Code is not above law.
Digital assets can—and will—be treated like any other recoverable property.

As more courts adopt similar reasoning, and as legal professionals grow more familiar with blockchain technologies, victims of crypto fraud will gain new avenues to recover losses, pursue justice, and hold perpetrators accountable—no matter where in the world they operate.

The message is clear: The law is catching up with the blockchain.

Disclaimer

The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice.

Author & Crypto Consultant

Shahid Jamal Tubrazy (Crypto & Fintech Law Consultant)

Shahid Jamal Tubrazy, a certified top expert in Crypto Law from Duke University, is a leading authority in the cryptocurrency and blockchain space. As a seasoned Fintech lawyer, he offers a full spectrum of services, including licensing, legal guidance for ICOs, STOs, DeFi, and DAOs, as well as specialized expertise in crypto mediation, negotiation, and mergers and acquisitions. With a proven track record and published works on Blockchain Regulation and Cryptocurrency Laws, Shahid provides unparalleled insights into the complexities of the fintech world, ensuring compliance and strategic success. 🌐💼 #CryptoLaw #Fintech #Blockchain #LicenseServices #CryptoMediator #MergersAndAcquisitions #CryptoCompliance #FrozenAssetsrecovery.