The rapid expansion of crypto asset use has brought a parallel rise in fraud cases involving anonymous or pseudonymous transactions. Identifying the wrongdoer is a critical first step for victims seeking redress. The traditional weapon in the litigator’s arsenal has long been the Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO), but in the fast-evolving world of blockchain-based crime, this tool may be unwieldy or ineffective.
This article explores the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction and examines alternative methods emerging in English law that may better suit victims of crypto fraud.
The crypto landscape is still largely unregulated, however, our experienced team at LEXLAW has kept itself abreast with the latest changes in the Crypto-landscape to provide our clients with the best possible advice and representation in order to help people get their money back. Our Barristers and Solicitors have decades of experience in dealing with loan disputes. If you have fallen prey to cyber fraud or in a loan dispute, please do not hesitate to contact us, so we can provide you with the best possible advice and help that you may need.
What is a Norwich Pharmacal Order?
A Norwich Pharmacal Order compels an innocent third party typically one caught up in wrongdoing through no fault of their own to disclose information to help identify a wrongdoer. Originating from Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, it has become a mainstay of pre-action investigatory relief.
To succeed, the applicant must show:
- A wrong has been carried out or arguably carried out;
- The respondent is involved or mixed up in the wrongdoing (even innocently);
- The order is necessary to enable action to be brought against the wrongdoer.
In the context of crypto fraud, NPOs are often used against crypto exchanges to obtain KYC (know-your-customer) information of wallet holders who received stolen assets. However, global jurisdictional issues, speed of movement, and lack of cooperation from some offshore exchanges limit the effectiveness of NPOs.
The Limitations of Third Party Disclosure Applications in Crypto Fraud Cases
- Jurisdictional Complexity: Many exchanges are located in jurisdictions outside England and Wales. Obtaining cross-border enforcement of an NPO can be procedurally difficult and slow wholly unsuited to tracing rapidly dissipating cryptoassets.
- Pseudo-anonymity and Mixing: Even with disclosure, blockchain anonymity and asset mixing may frustrate identification efforts. NPOs are reactive, not preventative.
- Cost and Delay: Victims of fraud are often individual or SME claimants without the means to litigate against foreign platforms or bear the time delay inherent in applications.
Alternative Tools to Trace Stolen Crypto Assets:
1. Bankers Trust Orders
A Bankers Trust Order, derived from Bankers Trust Co v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274, allows for disclosure of information by third parties to trace misappropriated assets. These are especially useful in claims involving breach of trust or fraud, and unlike NPOs, can be obtained against defendants and third parties alike in ongoing proceedings.
Bankers Trust Orders are:
- Quicker to obtain post-issue;
- Designed for tracing, rather than mere identification;
- Suitable where the applicant already has some knowledge of the destination of the assets.
Use case: When you’ve traced funds to a wallet or exchange, and you wish to follow the chain of transactions, a Bankers Trust Order can be more flexible and faster than a Norwich Pharmacal application.
2. Proprietary Injunctions
If the stolen cryptoassets can be identified as the claimant’s property, a proprietary injunction can restrain dealings or transfers, including freezing exchange accounts. Such injunctions are particularly powerful when combined with disclosure orders.
In AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm), the court held that Bitcoin constituted property for the purposes of proprietary injunctions. This means:
- Victims can assert ownership over misappropriated tokens;
- Relief can be framed as a claim to recover specific assets, rather than damages.
3. Free-Standing Information Orders (Proposed Law Reform)
The Law Commission, in its June 2025 Consultation Paper No. 273 (“Digital Assets and Electronic Trade Documents in Private International Law”), proposed a new free-standing information order. This would enable claimants to compel disclosure before a substantive claim is ready bridging the gap between the Norwich Pharmacal test and practical access to justice in crypto cases.
Key features of the proposed reform:
- Targeted for early-stage fraud investigations;
- Not reliant on the “mixed-up in wrongdoing” test;
- Facilitates asset tracing and identity discovery where traditional connecting factors (e.g., domicile, physical presence) fail due to decentralisation.
This reform is particularly suited for the “decentralised” or “pseudo-anonymous” crypto context where claimants cannot easily formulate a full claim without disclosure.
4. Civil Procedure Reforms to Gateway Rules for Service Out
Another proposed reform concerns the expansion and clarification of the jurisdictional gateways under Practice Direction 6B. Currently, claimants must shoehorn applications for information orders through general gateways, such as “claims in tort” or “interim remedies.” The Law Commission’s consultation suggests a new express gateway for disclosure in aid of cryptoasset claims, which would reduce litigation cost and uncertainty.
5. CPR 25.1(g) Orders – Disclosure in Aid of Proceedings Anywhere
Under Civil Procedure Rule 25.1(g), the court may order disclosure for use in proceedings abroad. This is a useful avenue where exchanges or intermediaries are within jurisdiction but the main litigation will be pursued in another forum.
6. International Judicial Cooperation and Letter Rogatory Requests
Where exchanges are based abroad and decline to comply with English court orders, claimants may resort to mutual legal assistance treaties or letters rogatory. However, these are slow and better suited to criminal enforcement rather than commercial recovery. Nonetheless, they remain a backup route where direct legal compulsion is unavailable.
7. Use of Blockchain Analytics and Forensic Tools
While not a legal order, technological tools can trace crypto transactions on public blockchains, identifying patterns, clusters of addresses, and potential links to known entities. Law enforcement agencies increasingly rely on blockchain forensic companies to uncover the flow of illicit funds. This can be combined with legal orders to compel intermediaries to provide additional identifying information.
Strategic Toolbox: Ways To Trace Crypto Fraudsters
While Norwich Pharmacal orders remain a valuable tool to identify wrongdoers in crypto fraud cases, their effectiveness is limited by the decentralised and anonymous nature of blockchain technology and jurisdictional challenges. The emerging alternative of free-standing information orders, as proposed by the Law Commission, offers a promising legal innovation to facilitate earlier and broader access to information in digital asset disputes. Coupled with technological forensic methods, international cooperation, and statutory powers, these alternatives provide a more comprehensive framework to tackle the identification of perpetrators in crypto fraud.
Instruct Our Cryptocurrency Litigation Lawyers
Our specialist fraud recovery and cryptocurrency litigation team has deep expertise in pursuing claims against perpetrators of digital fraud. If you’ve fallen victim to crypto fraud or require strategic advice on disclosure options, contact our team today.
Check Your Litigation Case ✔
We analyse your case prospects. We deliver strategic legal advice at your first fixed fee meeting. We get optimal legal results. Want our opinion on your case? Click below or call our lawyers in London on ☎ 02071830529
Frequently Asked Questions:
What is a Norwich Pharmacal Order in crypto fraud cases?
A Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) is a court order requiring an innocent third party such as a crypto exchange to disclose information that helps identify a wrongdoer. In crypto fraud cases, this typically involves compelling exchanges to release KYC data of wallet holders involved in receiving or holding stolen cryptoassets.
When is a Norwich Pharmacal Order not effective in cryptoasset cases?
NPOs may be ineffective when the crypto exchange is based offshore, refuses to cooperate, or when the wrongdoer uses advanced anonymisation techniques (like coin mixers or privacy wallets). The time and cost of securing an NPO also make it impractical in some urgent fraud recovery scenarios.
What is the difference between a Norwich Pharmacal Order and a Bankers Trust Order?
While both orders are used to obtain disclosure, a Bankers Trust Order is typically used to trace and preserve misappropriated assets rather than simply identify a wrongdoer. Bankers Trust Orders can be used post-proceedings and apply to both defendants and third parties, making them more flexible in asset tracing.
How can I get disclosure from an overseas crypto exchange?
If a platform is outside of England and Wales, claimants may seek permission for service out of the jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Rules. Alternatively, letters rogatory or mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) can be used, although they are typically slower and more suited to criminal investigations.
Are there new legal reforms to help with crypto fraud claims?
Yes. The Law Commission’s June 2025 Consultation Paper proposes both a new disclosure order tailored for crypto fraud and a revision of jurisdictional rules (Practice Direction 6B) to streamline cross-border service in cryptoasset disputes.
What are Free-standing Information Orders and how are they different from NPOs?
Proposed by the Law Commission, free-standing information orders would enable disclosure at the earliest stage of investigation, without the need to show the respondent was involved in wrongdoing. This reform is intended to better accommodate the decentralised and anonymous nature of cryptoasset ecosystems.