HOLDING CYBERCRIMINALS ACCOUNTABLE
MOOIJ -V- PERSONS UNKNOWN

HILL DICKINSON

n the ever-evolving landscape of cyberspace, legal disputes can arise where the identity of the alleged wrongdoers are shrouded in anonymity. These disputes present unique challenges for the traditional legal frameworks, particularly determining accountability.

A case that has explored this area further is Mooij -v- Persons Unknown. The judgment not only underscores the complexities of holding unidentifiable persons accountable but also provides much needed guidance on effecting service on
unknown defendants and the approach to be taken by the court on liability issues in such scenarios.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

Mooij was a case heard in the High Court of England and Wales which centred around cryptocurrency theft. The claimant, Mr. Mooij, was deceived into transferring Bitcoins and €330,000 to fraudulent entities, prompting him to seek legal recourse, including an initial freezing injunction.

He also pursued related claims against the unknown defendants, including for proprietary relief and a money judgment for the value of the lost assets. Unsurprisingly and characteristically for such disputes, none of the defendants participated in the court proceedings.

KEY ISSUES AND FINDINGS OF THE JUDGE

The case raised fundamental questions about jurisdiction, identification, and liability in the digital realm. The Court made an order permitting alternative service on the defendants. It was held that the sole intent behind serving legal proceedings, regardless of the method used, was to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over defendants.

This encompassed individuals who were considered served but opted not to recognise the Court’s jurisdiction. In this case, creative methods such as NFT airdrops into target wallets and filing documents at Court were deemed effective service. This case illustrates that the courts are more than willing to adopt creative alternative methods for serving legal documents and establishing jurisdiction in these matters.

The High Court affirmed that although enforcing the judgment might pose challenges, the inability to identify a defendant at the time of judgment did not hinder the Court from exercising jurisdiction to grant relief, including issuing a final monetary judgment.

In doing so, the court distinguished from the court in Boonyaem -v- Persons Unknown Category A, a similar case focussed on digital asset fraud, in which held that the Court should not give judgment for any non-proprietary relief to unknown defendants.

In Mooij, the High Court held that the defendants had failed to present a viable defence due to their complete lack of engagement in the proceedings, and that there was no reason for the jurisdiction established against them through court-directed alternative service not to result in the desired outcome pursued by the claimant. Again, an eminently practical approach.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Mooij highlights the evolving nature of legal and technological landscapes. Whilst it might be anticipated that the courts may struggle to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies, such as cryptocurrencies, and their implications for legal frameworks, enforcement and remedies available to claimants, the courts have in fact proved extremely adaptable to dealing with such issues.

The ruling in Mooij represents a further step towards enhancing accountability in the digital realm by establishing grounds for holding unknown and unidentifiable persons accountable in cyberspace.

For further information on cyber issues, please contact Kate Steele.