On 4 June 2026, Lewis Silkin hosted, as one of several events for London International Disputes Week, a practical panel discussion entitled Into the ether: chasing crypto across borders. The session brought together a multidisciplinary team of specialists to address a pressing question: when crypto assets vanish, what can clients and their advisers realistically do to trace, track and recover them?
The panel was moderated by Leo Meredith of Lewis Silkin and featured Henry Reid of Outer Temple Chambers, Jonathan Benton and Robert Eastick of iSanctuary, Sanjay Desai of Sanbrooke Risk Solutions, and Tom Brown of Burford Capital. Together, the panellists offered a complimentary combination of legal, forensic, funding and insurance expertise, reflecting the collaborative approach that successful crypto recovery demands.
The Scale of the Problem
The session opened with a sobering reminder of the scale of cryptocurrency fraud. Data from Chainalysis suggests that approximately $3 billion worth of crypto fraud was reported in 2025, with more going unreported entirely. While victims can report matters to the police, law enforcement options for recovery remain limited, with only around 1% of fraud investigated by the police. This reality places civil remedies at the forefront of any recovery effort.
The first 48 hours: the importance of acting fast
A central theme of the discussion was the critical importance of the first 48 hours following a crypto theft. The panel in fact described a "golden hour" concept, borrowed from the police and medical professions, that should be applied to crypto fraud to assess the situation and identify whether there is an opportunity to act. Stolen crypto can be moved at extraordinary speed, meaning that it is important to act fast.
The immediate steps for a victim include contacting legal advisers and assembling a specialist team, changing access credentials, notifying exchanges (which may be co-operative, particularly if they are looking to become regulated), and preserving evidence, including screenshots of any communications with the fraudster. A key early step from a forensic perspective is to provide transaction hashes to tracing experts as quickly as possible. Alerts can be placed onto wallets within seconds, and direct communications with exchanges can be opened to procure a voluntary freeze on assets.
From a legal standpoint, a suite of interim remedies is available: interim proprietary injunctions, worldwide freezing orders, and search and imaging orders, alongside information orders such as Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust orders, typically directed against the exchanges to which assets have been traced.
The forensic investigation process begins with transaction hashes provided by the client, or by recreating the wallet to analyse the transactions. From there, tracers can follow the flow of assets.
The panel emphasised that the technology in this space is advancing rapidly and will continue to do so. However, challenges remain and the quality of forensic evidence presented to the court is becoming increasingly important.
Funding, insurance or a combination of the two can be lined up to de-risk the pursuit for both clients and law firms, addressing the nervousness around "throwing good money after bad".
Is crypto property? The evolving legal landscape
The panel addressed the foundational legal question of whether cryptocurrency constitutes property. The position was established in case law and has since been placed on a statutory footing by the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025. However, some uncertainty remains. In Yuen v Li, a case involving allegations that a husband's bitcoin was misappropriated by his former wife and her sister, the court held that the tort of conversion cannot apply to crypto assets – a decision that highlights the need for continuing evolution of the law in this area. Read more on this case here.
Recovery and enforcement: the endgame
The final segment of the discussion focused on the practical realities of turning court orders into recovered assets. A key practical point highlighted was the importance of crafting orders with enforcement in mind from the outset. The panel urged practitioners to identify as far as possible the jurisdictions in which enforcement will be needed and to consult with local counsel early. The type of judgment obtained from the English court matters: default judgments and summary judgments are treated differently across jurisdictions, and in some cases it is preferable to resist the temptation of a default judgment in favour of a summary judgment that will be more readily recognised abroad. Practitioners must also be alert to jurisdictional manoeuvring by exchanges.
Key Takeaways
The panel left the audience with a clear message: crypto recovery is possible, but it requires speed, expertise and the deployment of a multidisciplinary team from an early stage. The legal landscape is evolving in favour of claimants, the forensic technology is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and funding and insurance products are maturing to make pursuit economically viable.
For further information on this event or to discuss the article, contact Leo Meredith, Managing Associate, Lewis Silkin.
