Courts across the common-law world have moved, largely in concert, toward a clear conclusion: a non-fungible token (NFT) is capable of being property, and English-descended legal systems will protect it as such. That consensus has real consequences for business victims of crypto fraud. A freezing order can capture an NFT sitting in a wallet controlled by an unknown defendant. A disclosure order can compel an exchange to reveal who that defendant is. And a cross-border enforcement chain can translate that domestic relief into action in Singapore, Dubai or Hong Kong. The sections that follow map the case law, the practical limits, and the recovery process that a business claimant should understand before the trail goes cold.
Why Does NFT Property Status Matter for Business Victims?
NFT property status is the jurisdictional gateway to every meaningful recovery remedy. Without it, a court cannot grant a proprietary injunction, cannot appoint a receiver over a specific digital asset, and cannot issue a tracing order that follows value through a blockchain. The first English case to address the point directly was AA v Persons Unknown [2019], in which the court recognised that crypto assets satisfy the legal criteria for property: they are definable, identifiable by third parties, capable of being assumed by third parties, and have some degree of permanence. That holding – now consolidated across multiple subsequent decisions – applies with particular force to NFTs because each token is unique and individually traceable on-chain.
For a business claimant, this matters in three immediate ways. First, a claim in unjust enrichment or conversion is available where a wrongdoer disposes of the asset. Second, the claimant retains a continuing proprietary interest even after the token is transferred, meaning it can follow the asset into the hands of a third-party recipient who had notice of the fraud. Third, the property label supports a freezing order – not just over the defendant's general assets but over the specific NFT itself.
In our cross-border practice, the property holding is the legal foundation on which every subsequent step is built. Counsel who moves for relief without establishing the proprietary basis first will find applications rejected or adjourned, consuming the very time that recovery windows cannot afford to lose.
The recognition of NFTs as property in leading common-law courts is now settled enough to be treated as the baseline assumption for any recovery strategy.If a business holds NFTs as operational or investment assets and has not assessed the legal protections available in the event of misappropriation, now is the time. The process above describes the standard path. Your facts – the entity, the user base, the custody structure – change the analysis. Map your options with the OBOLUS disputes team at info@oboluslaw.com.
What Is the English Courts' Leading Position on NFTs?
The England and Wales judiciary has been the most explicit in developing the law on digital-asset property rights, and the NFT cases sit at the cutting edge of that development. The pivotal NFT decision is Osbourne v Persons Unknown [2022], in which the court held that NFTs constitute property capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction. That decision built directly on the Bitcoin property holding in AA v Persons Unknown and extended it to the distinct technical characteristics of non-fungible tokens.
Several features of the English approach make it particularly useful for business claimants. English courts have accepted service of proceedings via NFT airdrop to a wallet address, recognising the practical difficulty of locating defendants who operate pseudonymously. They have issued worldwide freezing orders (injunctions preventing a defendant from dealing with assets anywhere in the world) over crypto portfolios that include NFTs. And they have made Bankers Trust and Norwich Pharmacal disclosure orders requiring exchanges and custodians to produce account information – the data that connects a wallet address to a real identity.
The law firm infrastructure in London – together with the courts' willingness to grant emergency relief over a weekend on the papers alone – makes England and Wales the default first port of call for a business that has suffered a significant NFT theft. We have seen applications for freezing relief issued and served within a single working day where the forensic groundwork had already been laid.
Worldwide freezing orders granted by the England and Wales courts can extend to NFTs and other digital assets held anywhere in the world, provided the defendant falls within the court's personal jurisdiction.How Has Hong Kong Extended the Property Analysis?
Hong Kong's courts have moved quickly and independently to confirm that crypto assets, including NFTs, constitute property under Hong Kong law – and have introduced a procedural innovation with significant practical utility. The High Court action HCA 2417/2024 involved an injunction framed expressly by reference to a tokenised asset, demonstrating that the court is prepared to grant relief that attaches to the blockchain record itself rather than only to the underlying value in fiat terms. Earlier, Re Gatecoin [2023] HKCFI 914 confirmed that crypto assets are capable of being property in the context of a corporate insolvency – a holding that supports proprietary claims by creditors over exchange-held crypto balances.
For a business with operations or counterparties in Asia, Hong Kong's position matters for two reasons. The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) now operates a VASP (virtual asset service provider) licensing regime for virtual-asset trading platforms (VATPs), and licensed platforms are subject to regulatory obligations – including cooperation with court orders – that are more readily enforceable than demands made of offshore or unregistered operators. Simultaneously, Hong Kong's common-law heritage means that English freezing-order precedents are persuasive, and the courts have shown willingness to grant injunctive relief in support of foreign proceedings.
Operators we advise in cross-Asia structures regularly ask whether Hong Kong or Singapore is the better forum for rapid injunctive relief. The honest answer is that both are capable jurisdictions; the choice turns on where the defendant's assets or the relevant exchange is located, and on the procedural posture of the specific claim.
What Did Singapore Establish About Proprietary Injunctions Over Crypto?
Singapore's High Court established in CLM v CLN [2022] SGHC 46 that crypto assets are capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction – the civil remedy that prevents a defendant from dealing with a specific identified asset. That decision is significant because Singapore is a major hub for digital-asset business, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) operates the Payment Services Act licensing regime for Digital Payment Token (DPT) services. The combination of a developed regulatory regime and a courts willing to grant proprietary relief creates a coherent enforcement environment that business claimants can rely on.
NFTs, as a species of crypto asset with a uniquely identifiable on-chain record, fit comfortably within the reasoning in CLM v CLN. A claimant who can demonstrate a proprietary interest in a specific NFT – through ownership records on the blockchain, smart-contract logs, or prior custody – can seek an injunction preventing the defendant from listing, selling, or transferring the token. That injunction can be supported by a disclosure order requiring a platform operating under MAS oversight to produce account records.
The practical limit is the same as in every jurisdiction: speed. Singapore courts grant emergency interim relief, but an application that arrives after an NFT has been burned, fractionalized, or bridged to a chain where jurisdiction is harder to establish faces significantly greater difficulty. We move for disclosure and freezing relief simultaneously wherever the procedural rules permit.
How Do the DIFC Courts Approach Digital-Asset Property Claims?
The DIFC Courts in Dubai have emerged as a credible forum for digital-asset disputes, with a jurisdiction that extends well beyond the DIFC financial free zone itself where parties have agreed to it or where the defendant's assets are located there. Two recent decisions illustrate the court's posture. Techteryx v Aria Commodities DMCC [2025] DIFC involved claims in the digital-asset space heard by the DIFC Courts, while Trafigura v Gupta [2025] DIFC demonstrated the court's willingness to grant a worldwide freezing order in support of foreign proceedings – a tool of direct relevance to any claimant whose primary suit is proceeding in London or Singapore but whose defendant has assets in Dubai.
VARA – the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority responsible for digital-asset oversight in mainland Dubai – operates separately from the DIFC's regulatory perimeter, but the two environments interact in practice. A VARA-licensed operator sitting in mainland Dubai and a DIFC-based entity may both be addressable in the same enforcement chain, and we have seen cross-DIFC and cross-VARA strategies deployed where the defendant's footprint spans both zones.
For a business that holds NFTs as part of a wider digital-asset portfolio and has operations in the UAE, the DIFC Courts' appetite for interim relief is a meaningful protection. The court's English-law heritage makes precedents from England and Wales directly applicable, and the process for applying for emergency relief – including relief over a weekend – closely mirrors the London approach.
The DIFC Courts can grant worldwide freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings, making them an effective node in a cross-border NFT recovery chain that spans the UAE, England and Singapore.If an NFT theft or digital-asset fraud has already occurred, the recovery clock is running. A prior attempt that stalled – whether at the exchange disclosure stage or at enforcement – may reveal a structural gap that can be addressed. To discuss a second read on a stalled matter, write to info@oboluslaw.com or reach our disputes desk at t.me/oboluslaw.
How Does On-Chain Tracing Support an NFT Property Claim?
On-chain tracing is the evidentiary backbone of an NFT recovery, and its quality determines whether a court application succeeds at the first hearing or collapses under cross-examination. Because every NFT transfer is recorded on a public blockchain, the ownership history of a specific token is in principle fully reconstructable – from original mint through every subsequent transfer – without requiring cooperation from any counterparty. That is the structural advantage of the blockchain record over traditional asset tracing, where the claimant depends entirely on bank or brokerage disclosures.
In practice, a forensic report for an NFT recovery matter will identify the token by its smart-contract address and token ID, trace each transfer transaction through the ledger, identify any intermediate wallets, flag any movement to centralised exchanges (which are the points where off-chain identity data exists), and produce a chronological exhibit suitable for filing with a court application. Forensic specialists – firms that provide blockchain analytics for law-enforcement and private matters – produce reports of this kind routinely, and courts in England, Singapore and Hong Kong have accepted them as expert evidence.
The report serves two simultaneous functions. For the freezing order, it establishes that identifiable property exists and is at risk of dissipation. For the disclosure order, it identifies the exchange or custodian that holds the account linked to the final wallet – the entity that the court order is directed at. Where a stablecoin is involved in the same transaction chain, issuers such as Tether (USDT) and Circle (USDC) hold contract-level freeze authority over their tokens and will generally act on a law-enforcement case reference or, in some circumstances, a court order.
We work with forensic specialists at the case-inception stage, not as an afterthought. A report produced on an accelerated basis – sometimes within hours for a straightforward single-chain trace – is the document that goes before the judge at the emergency hearing. Quality at that stage is not optional.
What Are the Limits of the Property Analysis, and Where Does Cross-Border Complexity Bite?
The property analysis has firm limits, and a candid legal strategy requires acknowledging them rather than overpromising. Three constraints arise consistently in our practice.
First, jurisdiction over the defendant. A court can freeze assets and make disclosure orders only if it can establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant or in rem jurisdiction over the asset. Where an NFT has been moved to a self-custody wallet operated by an unknown person who has no connection to the forum state, and where the relevant marketplace or blockchain node is also offshore, a claimant faces a genuine jurisdictional gap. Norwich Pharmacal orders directed at exchanges can supply the missing identity data – but only if the exchange is a legal person within the court's reach or if a treaty or mutual legal assistance mechanism applies.
Second, the speed of the blockchain. An NFT can be listed, sold and settled in minutes. Fractionalization protocols can split it into fungible tokens, making specific asset-tracing difficult. Bridge transactions can move the token across chains, complicating the evidentiary chain. Each of these events may not destroy the legal claim – English courts have followed value through multiple transfers – but each step adds cost, time and uncertainty to enforcement.
Third, enforcement divergence. A worldwide freezing order granted in London binds anyone with notice of it, but converting that paper right into actual asset control in a jurisdiction that has not yet developed a clear NFT property regime is a different exercise. We coordinate with allied counsel in the relevant jurisdiction on enforcement, and the honest advice is that some jurisdictions present materially more enforcement risk than others.
The CFAAR (Crypto Fraud and Asset Recovery network), launched in London in September 2021, has improved the cross-border coordination infrastructure between practitioners. That network, combined with the growing body of case law across common-law hubs, means that the environment is better than it was – but it is not frictionless.
Which Recovery Strategy Fits Which Business Profile?
Not every NFT recovery mandate looks the same, and the right strategy depends on the profile of the claimant, the location of the asset and the speed at which the trail is moving.
Profile A: A business holding NFTs as investment or treasury assets, theft discovered within hours. The optimal strategy is an emergency application in a leading common-law forum – England, Singapore or Hong Kong depending on where the defendant's exchange accounts are likely held. A forensic report produced on an accelerated basis supports simultaneous applications for a proprietary injunction and a disclosure order directed at any exchange that received the token. Timeline: initial relief can be sought within one to three business days where the forensic work is already under way. Key risk: the token has already been sold and the proceeds converted to fiat and withdrawn; speed is the only mitigation.
Profile B: A marketplace or platform that has suffered a smart-contract exploit, with NFTs drained from user wallets. The legal picture is more complex because the claimants are the platform's users, not the platform itself, and a class or representative action may be required. Forensic tracing across potentially hundreds of tokens is a more intensive exercise. The cross-border angle typically involves multiple exchanges and jurisdictions simultaneously. Timeline and cost are materially higher than in Profile A; the realistic focus may be on the largest-value tokens rather than full portfolio recovery.
Profile C: A business that held NFTs on a third-party custodian that has become insolvent or is suspected of fraud. The proprietary analysis in Re Gatecoin and its equivalents supports a proprietary claim against the insolvency estate – meaning the claimant may rank ahead of unsecured creditors if it can establish that specific identified tokens are its property and were segregated in its name. This is a distinct legal route from the inter partes fraud action and is governed by insolvency law as much as by crypto-asset property law. Early engagement of insolvency and asset recovery counsel together is essential.
How Has This Played Out in Practice?
In a recent matter, a digital-media company discovered in the early hours of a weekday morning that a significant portfolio of NFTs had been removed from its custodial account without authorization. The tokens had an identifiable market value in the high six figures. A forensic specialist produced a blockchain trace within hours, identifying the receiving wallets and a centralised exchange at which some of the tokens had been listed for sale. We filed an application for a proprietary injunction and a Bankers Trust disclosure order in a leading common-law forum that same morning, seeking emergency relief before the listed tokens cleared settlement.
The court granted interim relief on the papers within hours of filing, and the exchange was served before the listing period expired. The disclosure order produced account verification data identifying the individual behind the receiving wallet. Proceedings against that individual are ongoing. The matter illustrates both the potential of the legal tools and the non-negotiable role of speed: a delay of even twelve additional hours would likely have resulted in the proceeds being converted and withdrawn before any freezing mechanism could be engaged.
A Common Assumption: Once Funds Leave the Wallet, Nothing Can Be Done
The belief that a digital-asset theft is irreversible is the single most damaging assumption a business victim can hold, because it causes the delay that actually makes recovery impossible. It is not accurate as a legal matter. Courts in England, Singapore, Hong Kong and the DIFC have all demonstrated willingness to grant rapid injunctive relief over NFTs and other digital assets – including against unknown defendants, served at a wallet address – precisely because the on-chain record makes the asset identifiable in a way that traditional stolen property often is not.
What is true is that recovery probability is strongly correlated with the speed of response. A theft discovered within hours, met with a forensic trace and an emergency court application, has a materially different outcome profile from the same theft discovered a week later. The window between an NFT being sold on a marketplace and the proceeds being converted to fiat and withdrawn through an exchange's off-ramp can be measured in hours. That is the window in which legal tools are most effective.
The practical implication for a business that holds NFTs, operates a marketplace, or provides custody is to have the incident-response protocol in place before the event: a relationship with forensic specialists who can be engaged immediately, a legal team that has pre-positioned the documentation required for an emergency application, and a clear internal chain of command for authorising the expenditure that an emergency application involves. Regulators in the leading hubs increasingly expect documented incident-response procedures as part of the compliance obligations that accompany a VASP or CASP authorisation.
Related at OBOLUS
- Disputes and Asset Recovery for Digital-Asset Businesses – how OBOLUS structures cross-border recovery mandates from tracing to enforcement
- Crypto Fraud and Asset Recovery in Liechtenstein – the Liechtenstein legal environment for digital-asset claims and cross-border enforcement
- Custody Arrangements for Funds: The Compliance Burden in Practice – safeguarding, segregation and the regulatory expectations around digital-asset custody
FAQ
Can stolen crypto actually be recovered?
Yes, in many cases – though recovery is far from guaranteed and depends heavily on speed, the quality of forensic tracing, and the location of the assets. Courts in England, Singapore, Hong Kong and the DIFC have all granted freezing orders and disclosure orders over stolen crypto and NFTs. Where the assets reach a regulated exchange before withdrawal, the combination of a court order and an exchange disclosure request can freeze the balance before it is moved off-platform. The critical variable is time: every hour between discovery and legal action narrows the practical window for recovery.
How fast must I act after a digital-asset theft?
Immediately. Recovery windows are measured in hours, not days. An NFT can be sold on a marketplace and the proceeds converted and withdrawn from an exchange within a single business day. Forensic tracing should begin the moment the theft is discovered. An emergency court application – for a proprietary injunction and a disclosure order against the relevant exchange – can be prepared and filed within hours in England, Singapore and Hong Kong where the forensic groundwork has been laid. Every delay materially reduces the probability of a successful freeze before the funds are dispersed.
Can a court freeze assets held on an exchange?
Yes. Courts in leading common-law forums routinely issue freezing orders that capture assets held on centralised exchanges, and disclosure orders – including Bankers Trust and Norwich Pharmacal orders in English proceedings – compel exchanges to produce account-holder information. The exchange must be a legal person within the court's reach, or a mutual legal assistance mechanism must apply. Regulated exchanges operating under MAS, SFC, VARA or FCA oversight are generally responsive to court orders because non-compliance carries regulatory consequences. Unregistered offshore operators present greater enforcement difficulty.
OBOLUS is an independent digital-asset law boutique acting only for businesses. We advise exchanges, custodians, token issuers and funds on licensing across 70+ jurisdictions, on disputes and on-chain asset recovery across 25+ forums, and on the tax, banking and compliance that sit around them. Digital assets are the whole of our practice. In the disputes context, we move for freezing relief and exchange disclosure while the trail is live – treating tracing, court applications and cross-border coordination as a single integrated mandate rather than sequential steps. To discuss a matter, contact info@oboluslaw.com.
By Glen Sorensen, Disputes & Recovery Analyst – specialising in cross-border NFT and digital-asset recovery, freezing orders and exchange disclosure across leading common-law forums.
This publication is general information about the law and does not constitute legal advice. It is not a substitute for advice tailored to your circumstances. OBOLUS accepts no liability for action taken or not taken on the basis of this material. For advice on your situation, contact info@oboluslaw.com.