On 14 November 2022, the plaintiff’s cryptocurrencies in the sum of around HK$112 million were stolen (§6). Around 5.9 million USDT, i.e. around HK$46 million, were traced into the TV6 Address (§11), which was a Binance hot wallet (§17).
On 25 November 2022, the Plaintiff made an ex parte application for proprietary and worldwide Mareva injunctions against the 1st and 2nd Defendant (§23). The 2nd Defendant was “an unknown person or person(s) who has access to or operates the addresses as per Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Indorsement of Claim” (§24).
After inter partes hearings on 9 December 2022 (§38) and 23 December 2022 (§48), the substantive inter partes hearing took place on 24 April 2024 (§55) and 19-20 September 2024 (§§76, 81).
On 9 December 2022, 23 December 2022, and 24 April 2024, Binance Holdings Ltd, a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, appeared on the basis that it can procure the platform of Binance to comply with any order of the Court (§§38, 50). On 23 December 2022, Binance Holdings Ltd opposed the continuation of the proprietary injunction and the Mareva injunction (§50) and the worldwide Mareva injunction and the proprietary injunction (except against the TV6 Address) were continued (§51(3)). On 24 April 2024, the Plaintiff accepted that the worldwide Mareva injunction should be set aside and discharged (§74).
First, regarding Nest Services Ltd, on 12 September 2024, Nest Services Ltd, a company incorporated in the Republic of Seychelles, took out a Summons for leave to be heard on 19 September 2024 (§§78-79). It was Nest Services Ltd’s case that it met the definition of the 2nd Defendant in that it became an operator of the Binance platform (§79). The Court (DHCJ MC Law SC) granted the plaintiff leave to join Nest Services Ltd as the 3rd Defendant (§82).
Second, regarding the merits of the case, Nest Services Ltd argued that it is not possible to follow the stolen cryptocurrencies because of how the Binance platform operates (§89). Nonetheless, the Court accepted the Plaintiff’s submissions that there was at least a serious issue to be tried that the Plaintiff can trace or follow the stolen cryptocurrencies in the TV6 Address, which were held on constructive trust for the Plaintiff (§§88, 90).
Third, regarding the discharge of the proprietary injunction, the Court discharged the proprietary injunction on the basis that there was insufficient urgency to proceed on an ex parte basis without giving notice to Binance (§103) and material non-disclosure at the ex parte stage of pre-injunction correspondence, nature of the TV6 Address, and possible defences of Binance (§§111-113).
Fourth, regarding the disclosure order, the Court granted a disclosure order against Nest Services Ltd on the basis that it use the best endeavours and to the extent the information is available (§144).
Wayne Walsh SC leading Fergus Tam, instructed by Henry Yu & Associates, acted for the plaintiff on the 2nd and 3rd day of the inter partes substantive hearing (19-20 September 2024).
For Wayne’s full profile, see here.
For Fergus’ full profile, see here.
The judgment of DHCJ MC Law SC [2025] HKCFI 4941 can be found here.
