The recent decision in Sachs v Snape and others [2025] EWHC 1746 (Comm), handed down by HHJ Pearce, is a useful judgment for claimants and practitioners in the handling of cryptocurrency disputes and the application of the newly introduced model freezing order under the revised CPR Part 25.

Background

The claimant, Mr Sachs, an Italian entrepreneur, alleged that he was persuaded by the first defendant, Mr Snape, to invest approximately £1.3m in cryptocurrency ventures. The investments were made under the guise of an “anchorage agreement” governed by English law, and a consultancy agreement governed by Italian law. The funds were channelled through various entities, including a UK-based company and a Miami-based company, both linked to the Snape brothers.

Despite repeated acknowledgements of liability by Mr Snape, no repayments were made. The claimant sought proprietary and Mareva-type freezing injunctions to preserve assets pending resolution of his claims, which included fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.[1]

Crypto as property: no longer controversial

The court reaffirmed the now-settled position that cryptocurrency can be the subject of proprietary injunctions. Citing Tulip Trading Ltd v Van Der Laan [2023] EWCA Civ 83, HHJ Pearce accepted that crypto assets are at least “arguably property,”[2] capable of supporting both proprietary and freezing relief.

This is a welcome confirmation for claimants navigating the murky waters of crypto fraud. The court’s pragmatic approach to identifying and serving “persons unknown” who hold crypto wallets also reflects the developing jurisprudence in this area (see below).

The new model order

A notable procedural development in this case was the court’s adoption of the new model freezing order, which came into force the day after the hearing. Despite the transitional timing, HHJ Pearce opted to apply the new model, citing its clarity in distinguishing between proprietary and general freezing relief.[3]

This endorsement of the new model order recognises that it is designed to address precisely the kind of hybrid relief sought in crypto cases, where claimants often assert both ownership rights and general enforcement concerns.

Delay and discretion - the court takes a balanced approach

Although there was a delay of several months between the claimant’s discovery of the alleged fraud and the application for relief, the court declined to penalise the claimant. HHJ Pearce acknowledged that victims of fraud may reasonably attempt to resolve matters without litigation and that the delay had not prejudiced the effectiveness of the relief sought.

This balanced approach reflects a realistic understanding of the commercial and emotional complexities faced by fraud victims, particularly in the volatile and opaque world of crypto investments.

Jurisdiction and service: gateway 3 and substituted service

The court permitted service out of the jurisdiction on the Miami-based fourth respondent under gateway 3 of CPR PD 6B.[4] HHJ Pearce also allowed substituted service on the fifth defendant “persons unknown” holding crypto assets.[5] The judgment carefully considered comity and effectiveness of service, emphasising that service ought not to be effected by substituted means if that service would not be effective in accordance with the law of the country where the particular recipient is located.

Conclusion

Sachs v Snape is a timely and helpful decision. It illustrates the court’s willingness to adapt established principles to the realities of digital assets, and to embrace procedural reforms that enhance clarity and fairness.

For commercial litigators, the case offers a valuable precedent on the application of the new model freezing order in crypto disputes; the treatment of delay in fraud claims; and jurisdictional gateways and service mechanics in cross-border crypto cases.

As crypto-related litigation continues to rise, this judgment provides a useful template for claimants seeking to protect their interests in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.