Mareva Injunction and crypto fraud

• Main Author: YIP, Man
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2024
• Subjects: Banking and Finance Law; Commercial Law
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4487; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/6445/viewcontent/9781509970759__07_pv.pdf
• Institution: Singapore Management University

Without a Mareva injunction, there is always a risk that any victory on the substantive merits would be rendered hollow in practice by the absence of assets against which the judgment may be enforced. Indeed, it is in cases concerning fraud that the risk of a nugatory judgment is most amplified because the defendant would have the propensity to engage in dishonest practices. Alarmingly, nearly 30 years aft er Mercedez Benz, the ‘black hole’ has enlarged because fraudsters can easily hide behind complex corporate structures and the anonymity of cyberspace. 2 Th is chapter focuses on the use of Mareva injunction in the fight against crypto fraud. Britain’s fraud reporting agency reported that crypto fraud loss in the UK ‘increased more than 40 per cent over the past year, surpassing 300 million for the first time’. Th e proliferation of crypto fraud has brought to the fore a new set of challenges for national courts that operate on procedural rules rooted in some notion of territoriality. Jurisdictions that embrace cryptoassets, such as the UK and Singapore, have also readily embraced its civil weaponry – of which the Mareva injunction is one – to help fraud victims trace and recover lost assets and claim personal relief. Vigorous legal protection is crucial to boosting market confidence.