???????????? ????????????????: ???? ???????????????? ??????????????????????

The British Virgin Islands (‘BVI’) and the Cayman Islands have become the jurisdictions of choice for many developers and entrepreneurs when incorporating cryptocurrency exchanges, structuring cryptoasset funds or blockchain enterprises. In the absence of local legislation or case law, the BVI and Cayman Islands courts will look to the decisions of the English courts for guidance and authority though they are not binding to the former ones. This article discusses the legal remedies that may be available in the BVI and/or the Cayman Islands in the event that crypto-related proceedings have been or will be commenced in these jurisdictions.

TYPES OF CLAIM

There has been a sharp increase in crypto disputes involving companies and exchanges incorporated in the BVI and the Cayman Islands. The nature of the disputes often falls into one of the following four categories:?

1. Stolen cryptoassets, often by ‘persons unknown’, where the cryptoassets are moved to or through an exchange-hosted wallet provided by an exchange incorporated in the BVI or Cayman Islands;?

2. Algorithmic trading claims, that is, where an offshore exchange reverses or refuses to honour a trade, often citing ‘unilateral mistake’ as justification;?

3. Frozen wallets or trading accounts managed by offshore exchanges or funds; and?

4. Partnership disputes are where the relationship between the individuals involved in a blockchain project structured through offshore entities breaks down.

1.1 Stolen cryptoassets

Given the relative ease of transferring cryptocurrencies (deriving from their decentralised nature and often a single point of control), the tracing, freezing and recovery of cryptoassets is often a race against time. The first step is usually an ‘on-chain analysis’ to identify the last known or current location of the cryptoassets. The second step is to identify those persons against whom any order might be sought. Often, by virtue of the nature of crypto, the identities of the wrongdoers are unknown. However, in such a case, it is now well-established law in the UK and other jurisdictions that claims against ‘persons unknown’ are not procedurally barred and is, in fact, becoming more common, particularly in relation to crypto disputes.

In Ion Science Ltd v Persons Unknown, the English High Court granted a proprietary injunction, worldwide freezing order and ancillary disclosure order against persons unknown, alongside a Bankers Trust order against the parent companies of two cryptocurrency exchanges. Another important point in this case, which had not been previously considered in the case law, was that the English High Court concluded that the lex situs of a crypto asset is the place where the person or company who owns it is domiciled.?

Last year, in D’Aloia v Persons Unknown and Ors, the English High Court granted an order permitting the service of proceedings on persons unknown via a non-fungible token (‘NFT’) on a blockchain. This was the first instance of an English court allowing service by means of distributed ledger technology and has set a key precedent for victims of crypto fraud which allows them to use this novel technology to bring claims against persons unknown.

In the case of stolen cryptoassets, identifying the wrongdoer is a perennial problem which gives rise to issues of service for the defendant. In such cases, the BVI and Cayman Islands courts respectively follow the English practice of listing persons unknown’ as the defendant and granting substituted service, as appropriate.

1.2 Algorithmic trading claims (e.g. unilateral mistake)

There has been an increase in claims against exchanges involving the reversal or refusal to honour a trade made via a smart contract should certain conditions occur.

If a hack of the relevant exchange or error in the platform’s coding (perhaps caused by an update) occurred which caused the value of the relevant crypto to drop to a level significantly outside of what could be called usual trading, will the exchange honour the trade? In the significant case of B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd and in many cases which do not make it to court, the answer has been ‘no’. In light of this decision in the case of B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd, the inclusion of clauses which allow the reversal of trades is now common in many BVI and Cayman Islands exchanges and this will therefore make it more difficult for claimants to hold exchanges to trades which fell outside usual market conditions or were caused by error/hacking.

1.3 Frozen trading accounts

It is possible that crypto accounts may be frozen for a number of reasons, for example where there is suspicious activity or where there are multiple claims to ownership. Suspicious activity can include any form of illicit activity that is detected in the smart contract, such as using an inflation bug to mint and transfer tokens to an address the wrongdoer controls.?

Whilst there is little further reported case law on this subject matter at present, it is anticipated that the courts in the BVI and Cayman Islands are likely to be asked what would what be sufficient indicia of ownership as more of these matters proceed to litigation and having lawyers and representatives who are familiar with the various novel terminologies involved will be extremely helpful in establishing the key issues and thereby the resolution of these types of matters.?

1.4 Partnership disputes

It is often the case that new crypto ventures are not papered well at the outset and the rights between any partners and/or companies can be poorly documented or even non-existent.

There are also some unique challenges in these types of crypto matters, for example, there are rogue partners or employees who have the private key or seed phrase to a crypto wallet and may be in a position to cause immense damage simply by stealing cryptoassets or breaking smart contracts. In these circumstances, it will be key to quickly identify and consider the possible avenues for redress, including:?

1. What remedies might be available, for example, looking to obtain an injunction. It is important to note here that there may also be issues regarding service out if cross-jurisdictional considerations were to apply; and/or

2. How to control may be regained, namely by ensuring the destruction of the wrongly obtained seed phrase.

INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS

Both the BVI and Cayman Courts have shown robustness in granting orders directed at identifying a wrongdoer and securing documents which may assist in tracing assets which have been the subject of wrongdoing or fraud (‘Disclosure Orders’).

So-called Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust orders were developed originally as English equitable remedies to assist a claimant in identifying the wrongdoer or tracing assets.

In light of its equitable nature, if the respondent to a Norwich Pharmacal order and the information sought were outside of the jurisdiction of the English court, the English courts would, in all but the most exceptional cases, not grant the order being cautious not to impose its jurisdiction over foreign third parties, and the assistance of local courts would therefore have to be sought.

In contrast, the English courts more readily granted Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction, for example in crypto-fraud cases ‘in hot pursuit’

In the Cayman Islands, the Court of Appeal found that the courts have jurisdiction to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order in support of potential proceedings before a foreign court, even where alternative statutory remedies may be available. Similarly, in the BVI, following an ex parte application for Norwich Pharmacal relief, the Commercial Division of the High Court confirmed the availability of this relief in support of foreign proceedings.

It is to be expected that the BVI and Cayman Islands courts will continue to be willing to assist victims of theft and fraud in a crypto-context where victims seek information to aid recovery of misappropriated cryptoassets.

2. Protective relief

2.1 Mareva injunctions (freezing injunctions)

A freezing injunction is an order preventing the disposal of assets by the respondent. Typically, a freezing injunction is sought to preserve assets until a judgment can be obtained or satisfied. Under BVI and Cayman Islands law, the courts have the discretion to grant a freezing order in connection with underlying proceedings brought in that jurisdiction or in relation to proceedings which have been or are to be commenced in a foreign court, which are capable of giving rise to a judgment that may be enforced in the BVI or Cayman Islands.

In all cases, the applicant must have a good arguable case against the respondent and it must be just and convenient to make the order, which includes satisfying the Court i) that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the applicant; ii) consideration as to whether any losses caused to the respondent could be compensated by damages or protected by an undertaking (which may be fortified); and iii) the applicant satisfying the court that there is a real, objective risk of the respondent dissipating its assets in an attempt to prevent the satisfaction of a future judgment

2.2 Proprietary injunctions

Proprietary injunctions are considered to be a far less intrusive remedy than freezing injunctions as? they only attach to named assets which arguably belong to the claimant, as opposed to restraining the defendant’s assets generally.

Perhaps most notably in this area are the factors that the court will consider in deciding whether to grant a proprietary injunction following the decision in American Cyanamid v Ethicon, namely whether:

1. there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits;

2. damages would be an adequate remedy in place of granting the injunction;

3. the balance of convenience is in favour of granting an injunction; and

4. there are any other special factors that would weigh towards granting the injunction.

In addition, it is also worth recalling the decision in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC, one of the questions was whether there could be an equitable proprietary claim in the form of a resulting trust where money has been paid under a contract which is ultra vires and therefore void ab initio. The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords held that a trust relationship is established either where there is the intention, or presumed intention, by such parties to give effect to the common interests of the parties.?

Both these principles in relation to proprietary injunctions have been cited with approval by the courts in the BVI and Cayman Islands and therefore in cases involving cryptocurrencies, the same principles will likely be followed accordingly.?

CONCLUSION

It is evident that there has been a recent increase in crypto-related cases being litigated in the BVI and Cayman Islands, and other Commonwealth jurisdictions. Whilst certain principles, such as? cryptocurrencies and cryptoassets being treated as property, are now well-established laws, there is still a lot of scope for further development in the jurisprudence in this area, particularly in the absence of specific legislation. With the advent of more crypto disputes in offshore jurisdictions, it is expected that more helpful clarification with respect to crypto terminology will be forthcoming which will assist in the proper identification and/or determination of the issues in question.

VIETNAMESE VERSION

Qu?n ??o Virgin thu?c Anh (‘BVI’) và Cayman ?? tr? thành khu v?c pháp ly ???c nhi?u nhà phát tri?n và doanh nhan l?a ch?n khi xay d?ng sàn giao d?ch ti?n ?i?n t?, c?u trúc qu? ??u t? ti?n ?i?n t? ho?c m? c?ng ty v? blockchain. Trong tr??ng h?p kh?ng có lu?t ho?c án l? ?i?u ch?nh c? th?, các quy?t ??nh c?a tòa án thu?c h? th?ng common law s? ???c xem xét b?i tòa án BVI và Cayman m?c dù nh?ng phán quy?t này kh?ng có giá tr? ràng bu?c. Bài vi?t này th?o lu?n v? các bi?n pháp pháp ly có th? s? d?ng ? BVI và/ho?c Cayman trong tr??ng h?p các th? t?c t? t?ng liên quan ??n ti?n ?i?n t? ?? ho?c s? ???c th?c hi?n ? các khu v?c pháp ly này.

CáC LO?I KHI?U N?I

G?n ?ay có r?t nhi?u tranh ch?p v? ti?n ?i?n t? liên quan ??n các c?ng ty và sàn giao d?ch ???c thành l?p t?i BVI và Cayman. B?n ch?t c?a các tranh ch?p th??ng thu?c m?t trong b?n lo?i sau:

1. Tài s?n ti?n ?i?n t? b? ?ánh c?p, th??ng là b?i 'nh?ng ng??i kh?ng r? danh tính', trong ?ó ti?n ?i?n t? (crypto) ???c chuy?n th?ng qua m?t ví l?u tr? trên sàn giao d?ch ???c cung c?p b?i c?ng ty thành l?p t?i BVI ho?c Cayman.

2. Khi?u n?i thu?t toán giao d?ch, ngh?a là khi m?t sàn giao d?ch n??c ngoài ch?t v?n ho?c t? ch?i th?c hi?n giao d?ch, th??ng vi?n d?n ly do 'sai l?m ??n ph??ng'.

3. Ví ho?c tài kho?n giao d?ch b? ?óng b?ng do các qu? ho?c sàn giao d?ch ? n??c ngoài qu?n ly.

4. Tranh ch?p trong quan h? h?p tác, khi m?i quan h? gi?a các cá nhan tham gia vào m?t d? án blockchain th?ng qua m?t c?ng ty offshore b? r?n n?t.

1.1 Ti?n ?i?n t? b? ?ánh c?p

Do vi?c chuy?n ti?n ?i?n t? t??ng ??i d? dàng (xu?t phát t? b?n ch?t phi t?p trung c?a chúng và th??ng có m?t ?i?m ki?m soát duy nh?t), vì v?y vi?c truy tìm, ?óng b?ng và ph?c h?i ti?n ?i?n t? (crypto) th??ng là m?t cu?c ch?y ?ua v?i th?i gian. B??c ??u tiên th??ng là 'phan tích trên chu?i' (on-chain analysis) ?? xác ??nh v? trí hi?n t?i ho?c cu?i cùng c?a các lo?i ti?n ?i?n t?. B??c th? hai là xác ??nh nh?ng ng??i có th? b? truy c?u trách nhi?m. Th?ng th??ng, do b?n ch?t c?a ti?n ?i?n t?, danh tính c?a nh?ng k? ph?m t?i kh?ng ???c bi?t ??n. Tuy nhiên, trong tr??ng h?p nh? v?y, các quy ??nh t?i V??ng qu?c Anh và các khu v?c pháp ly khác cho phép vi?c yêu c?u b?i th??ng ??i v?i 'nh?ng ng??i kh?ng r? danh tính' s? kh?ng b? c?m v? m?t th? t?c. Trên th?c t?, v?n ?? này ?ang ngày càng ph? bi?n h?n, ??c bi?t là liên quan ??n các tranh ch?p v? ti?n ?i?n t?.

Trong v? Ion Science Ltd v Persons Unknown, Tòa án t?i cao c?a Anh ?? ban hành l?nh c?m s? h?u, l?nh ?óng b?ng trên toàn th? gi?i và l?nh ti?t l? ph? tr? ??i v?i nh?ng ng??i kh?ng r? danh tính, cùng v?i l?nh c?a Bankers Trust ??i v?i các c?ng ty m? c?a hai sàn giao d?ch ti?n ?i?n t?. M?t ?i?m quan tr?ng khác trong v? vi?c này, mà tr??c ?ay ch?a ???c xem xét trong án l?, là Tòa án t?i cao c?a Anh ?? k?t lu?n r?ng lu?t áp d?ng (lex situs) c?a ti?n ?i?n t? là n?i c? trú c?a ng??i ho?c c?ng ty s? h?u nó.

N?m ngoái, trong v? D’Aloia v Persons Unknown and Ors, Tòa án T?i cao Anh cho phép d?ch v? t? t?ng ??i v?i ‘nh?ng ng??i kh?ng r? danh tính’ th?ng qua m? th?ng báo kh?ng th? thay th? (‘NFT’) trên blockchain. ?ay là tr??ng h?p ??u tiên c?a tòa án Anh cho phép s? d?ng d?ch v? b?ng c?ng ngh? phan tán s? cái và ?? nó ?? t?o ra ti?n l? quan tr?ng cho các n?n nhan, cho phép h? s? d?ng c?ng ngh? m?i này ?? ??a ra yêu c?u ch?ng l?i ‘nh?ng ng??i kh?ng r? danh tính’.

Trong tr??ng h?p ti?n ?i?n t? b? ?ánh c?p, vi?c xác ??nh th? ph?m là m?t v?n ?? mu?n thu?, ??ng th?i n?y sinh ra v?n ?? t?ng ??t cho b? cáo. Trong nh?ng tr??ng h?p nh? v?y, tòa án BVI và Cayman s? tuan theo th?ng l? c?a Anh v? vi?c li?t kê 'nh?ng ng??i kh?ng r? danh tính’ là b? ??n và cung c?p d?ch v? thay th?, n?u phù h?p.

1.2 Khi?u n?i thu?t toán giao d?ch (ví d?: L?i ??n ph??ng)

Các khi?u n?i ??i v?i các sàn giao d?ch liên quan ??n vi?c ??o ng??c ho?c t? ch?i th?c hi?n giao d?ch th?ng qua h?p ??ng th?ng minh ?? gia t?ng g?n ?ay.

N?u sàn giao d?ch b? t?n c?ng ho?c x?y ra l?i trong chu?i l?p trình c?a sàn (có th? do c?p nh?t) khi?n giá tr? c?a m?t lo?i ti?n ?i?n t? nào ?ó gi?m xu?ng m?c ?áng k?, n?m ngoài m?c bình th??ng, thì li?u sàn giao d?ch có th?c hi?n giao d?ch ?ó kh?ng? Trong v? vi?c ?i?n hình c?a B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd và trong nhi?u tr??ng h?p kh?ng ??a ra tòa, cau tr? l?i là 'kh?ng'. Theo quy?t ??nh trong v? B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd, các ?i?u kho?n cho phép ??o ng??c giao d?ch hi?n ?ang có m?t ph? bi?n ? nhi?u sàn giao d?ch BVI và Cayman. Do ?ó, ?i?u này s? khi?n các nguyên ??n g?p khó kh?n h?n trong vi?c yêu c?u các sàn th?c hi?n giao d?ch khi các giao d?ch n?m ngoài các ?i?u ki?n th? tr??ng th?ng th??ng ho?c do l?i/ hack gay ra.

1.3 Tài kho?n giao d?ch b? ?óng b?ng

Các tài kho?n ti?n ?i?n t? có th? b? ?óng b?ng vì m?t s? ly do, ch?ng h?n nh? khi có ho?t ??ng ?áng ng? ho?c khi có nhi?u bên cùng yêu c?u quy?n s? h?u. Các ho?t ??ng ?áng ng? có th? bao g?m b?t k? hình th?c ho?t ??ng b?t h?p pháp nào ???c phát hi?n trong h?p ??ng th?ng minh, ch?ng h?n nh? s? d?ng l?i (bug) l?m phát ?? ?úc và chuy?n token ??n m?t ??a ch? mà ng??i vi ph?m ki?m soát.

M?c dù hi?n t?i có r?t ít án l? liên quan ??n v?n ?? này, ng??i ta d? ?oán r?ng các tòa án ? BVI và Cayman có th? ???c yêu c?u ??a ra các d?u hi?u ??u ?? ??i v?i quy?n s? h?u khi ti?n hành t? t?ng và vi?c thuê các lu?t s? quen thu?c v?i các thu?t ng? s? c?c k? h?u ích trong vi?c tìm ra các v?n ?? c?t l?i và t? ?ó gi?i quy?t các v?n ?? này.

1.4 Tranh ch?p trong quan h? h?p tác

Th?ng th??ng, các d? án ti?n ?i?n t? m?i kh?ng ???c chu?n b? k? l??ng ban ??u và các quy?n gi?a các ??i tác và/ho?c c?ng ty có th? ???c quy ??nh l?ng l?o ho?c th?m chí kh?ng t?n t?i.

Ngoài ra còn có m?t s? tr? ng?i ??c bi?t liên quan ??n tranh ch?p ki?u này, ch?ng h?n nh? khi có nh?ng ??i tác ho?c nhan viên có khóa riêng t? (private keys) c?a ví ti?n ?i?n t? và gay ra thi?t h?i to l?n cho c?ng ty b?ng cách ?ánh c?p tài s?n ti?n ?i?n t? ho?c phá v? h?p ??ng th?ng minh. Trong nh?ng tr??ng h?p này, ?i?u quan tr?ng là ph?i nhanh chóng xác ??nh và xem xét các cách ?? kh?c ph?c, bao g?m:

1. Có th? có nh?ng bi?n pháp kh?c ph?c nào, ch?ng h?n nh? tìm cách xin l?nh c?m. ?i?u quan tr?ng c?n l?u y ? ?ay là c?ng có th? có các v?n ?? liên quan ??n t?ng ??t khi can nh?c các y?u t? th?m quy?n chéo.

2. Có th? l?y l?i quy?n ki?m soát nh? th? nào, c? th? là b?ng cách ??m b?o vi?c h?y b? c?m t? g?c.

CáC C?NG C? ?I?U TRA

C? Tòa án BVI và Cayman ??u th? hi?n s? quy?t ?oán trong vi?c ban hành các l?nh nh?m xác ??nh ng??i vi ph?m và thu th?p các tài li?u có th? h? tr? truy tìm tài s?n là ??i t??ng c?a hành vi vi ph?m ho?c gian l?n ('L?nh Ti?t l?').

L?nh Norwich Pharmacal và L?nh Bankers Trust ban ??u ???c phát tri?n d??i d?ng các bi?n pháp kh?c ph?c c?ng b?ng ?? h? tr? nguyên ??n xác ??nh ng??i vi ph?m ho?c truy tìm tài s?n.

Xét v? b?n ch?t c?ng b?ng c?a nó, n?u b? ??n b? áp d?ng l?nh c?a Norwich Pharmacal và th?ng tin ???c tìm ki?m n?m ngoài th?m quy?n c?a tòa án Anh, thì tòa án Anh s?, trong t?t c? các tr??ng h?p, kh?ng c?p l?nh áp ??t quy?n tài phán c?a mình ??i v?i các tòa án n??c ngoài, và do ?ó s? ph?i tìm ki?m s? h? tr? c?a các tòa án ??a ph??ng.

Ng??c l?i, các tòa án ? Anh d? dàng ??a ra các l?nh c?a Bankers Trust ngoài ph?m vi quy?n tài phán, ví d? nh? trong các tr??ng h?p gian l?n ti?n ?i?n t? c?n ph?i th?c hi?n g?p rút.

T?i Cayman, Tòa án Phúc th?m nh?n th?y r?ng các tòa án có th?m quy?n ban hành l?nh Norwich Pharmacal ?? h? tr? các th? t?c t? t?ng trong t??ng lai ??i v?i tòa án n??c ngoài, ngay c? khi có các bi?n pháp kh?c ph?c thay th?. T??ng t? nh? v?y, t?i BVI, sau khi có ??n xin l?nh Norwich Pharmacal, Phòng Th??ng m?i c?a Tòa án T?i cao s? xác nh?n có th? s?n sàng h? tr? các th? t?c t? t?ng n??c ngoài hay kh?ng.

D? ki?n, tòa án BVI và Cayman s? ti?p t?c s?n sàng h? tr? n?n nhan c?a hành vi tr?m c?p và l?a ??o và tìm ki?m th?ng tin ?? kh?i ph?c tài s?n ti?n ?i?n t? b? ?ánh m?t.

CáC BI?N PHáP H? TR?

3.1 L?nh Mareva (l?nh ?óng b?ng)

L?nh ?óng b?ng là l?nh ng?n c?n vi?c x? ly tài s?n c?a b? ??n. Th?ng th??ng, l?nh ?óng b?ng s? tìm cách phong t?a tài s?n cho ??n khi m?t phán quy?t ???c tuyên b? ho?c ??m b?o. Theo lu?t c?a BVI và Cayman, các tòa án có toàn quy?n ban hành l?nh ?óng b?ng liên quan ??n các th? t?c t? t?ng ???c th?c hi?n t?i khu v?c tài phán ?ó, ho?c liên quan ??n các th? t?c t? t?ng ???c th?c hi?n t?i m?t tòa án n??c ngoài nh?ng phán quy?t có th? ???c thi hành t?i BVI ho?c Cayman.

Trong m?i tr??ng h?p, ng??i n?p ??n ph?i có m?t án l? có th? ch?ng l?i b? ??n và vi?c ban hành l?nh ph?i d?a trên s? c?ng b?ng và thu?n ti?n, bao g?m vi?c th?a m?n Tòa án i) r?ng vi?c b?i th??ng thi?t h?i kh?ng ph?i là bi?n pháp th?a ?áng cho nguyên ??n và ii) xem xét li?u b?t k? t?n th?t nào gay ra cho b? ??n có th? ???c b?i th??ng thi?t h?i ho?c ???c b?o v? b?i m?t cam k?t (có th? ???c c?ng c?); và iii) nguyên ??n thuy?t ph?c tòa án r?ng có r?i ro v? vi?c b? ??n có th? t?u tán tài s?n c?a mình nh?m ng?n c?n vi?c th?c hi?n phán quy?t trong t??ng lai.

3.2 L?nh c?m s? h?u

L?nh c?m s? h?u ???c coi là m?t bi?n pháp kh?c ph?c ít xam ph?m h?n nhi?u so v?i l?nh ?óng b?ng vì chúng ch? g?n v?i các tài s?n ???c cho là thu?c v? nguyên ??n, trái ng??c v?i vi?c h?n ch? tài s?n c?a b? cáo nói chung.

Có l? ?áng chú y nh?t trong l?nh v?c này là các y?u t? mà tòa án s? xem xét khi quy?t ??nh có c?p l?nh c?m s? h?u sau quy?t ??nh trong American Cyanamid v Ethicon hay kh?ng, c? th? là li?u:

1. có m?t v?n ?? nghiêm tr?ng c?n ???c xét x? theo c?ng tr?ng

2. b?i th??ng thi?t h?i s? là bi?n pháp kh?c ph?c th?a ?áng thay cho vi?c ban hành l?nh c?m

3. s? thu?n ti?n khi ban hành l?nh

4. có b?t k? y?u t? ??c bi?t nào khác có th? ?nh h??ng ??n vi?c ban hành l?nh c?m.

Ngoài ra, c?ng c?n nh?c l?i quy?t ??nh trong v? Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC, m?t trong nh?ng cau h?i ??t ra là li?u có th? có m?t yêu c?u s? h?u c?ng b?ng d??i hình th?c ?y thác, trong ?ó ti?n ?? ???c thanh toán theo m?t h?p ??ng v??t quá th?m quy?n và do ?ó v? hi?u t? ??u. ?y ban phúc th?m c?a H? vi?n cho r?ng m?i quan h? ?y thác ???c thi?t l?p khi có y ??nh ho?c y ??nh ???c cho là c?a các bên ?ó có th? mang l?i hi?u qu? cho l?i ích chung c?a các bên liên quan.

C? hai nguyên t?c này liên quan ??n l?nh c?m s? h?u ??u ???c trích d?n v?i s? ch?p thu?n c?a các tòa án ? BVI và Cayman. Do ?ó, trong các tr??ng h?p liên quan ??n ti?n ?i?n t?, các nguyên t?c t??ng t? có th? s? ???c tuan theo.

K?T LU?N

R? ràng g?n ?ay ?? có s? gia t?ng các v? ki?n liên quan ??n ti?n ?i?n t? ???c kh?i ki?n ? BVI và Cayman c?ng nh? các khu v?c pháp ly khác c?a Kh?i th?nh v??ng chung. M?c dù các nguyên t?c nh?t ??nh, ch?ng h?n nh? ti?n ?i?n t? và tài s?n ti?n ?i?n t? ???c coi là tài s?n, ?? là xay d?ng t? lau, v?n còn r?t nhi?u c? h?i ?? phát tri?n h?n n?a trong l?nh v?c này, ??c bi?t là khi kh?ng có quy ??nh pháp lu?t c? th?. V?i s? ra ??i c?a nhi?u tranh ch?p v? ti?n ?i?n t? ? các khu v?c pháp ly n??c ngoài, d? ki?n trong t??ng lai s? có nhi?u gi?i thích h?u ích h?n liên quan ??n thu?t ng? ti?n ?i?n t?, và ?i?u này s? h? tr? vi?c nh?n bi?t và/ ho?c xác ??nh chính xác các v?n ?? ?ang ???c ?? c?p.

Ion Science Ltd v Persons Unknown : Comm, CL-2020-000840, 21 December 2020 (unreported).

D’Aloia v Persons Unknown and Ors : [2022] EWHC 1723 (Ch).

B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd : [2019] SGHC(l) 3.

Norwich Pharmacal: A court order for the disclosure of documents or information against a third party (which has been innocently mixed up in wrongdoing) which may identify the ‘wrongdoers’ and thereby assist the applicant in bringing legal proceedings against those individuals

Bankers Trust: A court order against a bank (other financial institution, including brokers, crypto exchanges etc) to disclose the state of, and documents and correspondence relating to, the account of a customer who was, on the face of it, guilty of fraud to allow the applicant to trace their misappropriated funds or assets

American Cyanamid v Ethicon : [1975] 1 All ER 504.

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC : [1996] A.C. 669.