In 2024, several judgments have been rendered on crypto fraud, ordering cryptoexchanges to freeze accounts of (suspected) fraudulent users and to provide name and address details of these users. One of the challenges in these types of cases is the summoning of the defendant, who is often located in a (far) foreign country – often also in a country not party to the Hague Convention on service of process. In that situation, it can take a long time for the plaintiff to receive proof of delivery of the summons (a “certificate of service”) in return, and sometimes no certificate of service is returned at all. However, the e-mail offers a solution; judges appear willing to recognize this form of summons. Several rulings signal this “service by email.” Strictly speaking, however, it is not service but transmission, and the service requirement does remain as usual.
Update: read the 2025 overview here
Amsterdam District Court, December 24, 2024 (Kraken)
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:8186, , first ruling on transaction history account cryptoexchange, Rechtspraak.nl (Sdu Nieuws Financieel recht 2025/15, NTHR 2025/23, p.107) Summary proceedings Plaintiffs (UK citizens) are victims of scams. The funds obtained from that scam were converted into cryptocurrency. Claim against crypto exchange to provide the transaction data is granted under Section 843a Rv. Attorney’s note: In this case, the victims do not live in the Netherlands, but Kraken’s client does. This person was used by the criminal organization to convert the money from the fraud into crypto and forward it. The judge is ordering full disclosure of the transactions in the crypto account so that the victims can identify where the crypto is being sent through blockchaintracing.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Amsterdam District Court, Nov. 15, 2024, (Maskex & Gate.io)
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:6990, , Rechtspraak.nl (NTHR 2025/6, p. 40) Crypto platforms in summary proceedings ordered to freeze accounts and provide NAW data of users to plaintiff
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Amsterdam District Court, Sept. 26, 2024 (Squatting)
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:6472, , Rechtspraak.nl (NTHR 2025/6, p. 39) Summary LE Order. Plaintiffs claimed to be victims of fraud committed by defendant sub 2. Order freezing crypto account held by defendant sub 2 with defendants sub 1 and 3, pending substantive hearing on summary judgment.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Gelderland District Court, Sept. 4, 2024
ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:4258, Rechtspraak.nl (NJF 29024/349) Interim injunction. Application for ex parte injunction seeking (inter alia) freezing of crypto wallets. Significance issues.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Rotterdam District Court, July 19, 2024
ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:6723, , Rechtspraak.nl Summary proceedings. International dispute. May default be granted? Yes, application of HR December 14, 2007, ECLI:NL:HR:2007:BB7192. Claim to freeze bitcoin accounts and provide information about users of those accounts by defendant is granted. Attorney’s Note: The Supreme Court ruling refers to summons by courier with proof of delivery in lieu of service. This case involves summons by e-mail.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Limburg District Court, April 24, 2024
ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2024:2977, Rechtspraak.nl Interlocutory injunction. Possible cryptofraud; Interim injunction (order, ex parte); freezing cryptowallet; service by e-mail; see also ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2024:2007.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Overijssel District Court, May 17, 2024
ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2024:2578; Rechtspraak.nl Ex parte freezing order(s) in summary proceedings. Alleged cryptocurrency fraud. Payment via email.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Amsterdam District Court, April 17, 2024
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:2195, Rechtspraak.nl Interlocutory appeal. Continued from interlocutory judgment of Feb. 22, 2024 (ex parte order). Plaintiff is a victim of crypto fraud. Order in absentia to provide name and address details of user(s) of account where plaintiff’s crypto coins are located, and to continue freezing account.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Amsterdam District Court, Feb. 22, 2024
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:1958, Rechtspraak.nl Interim injunction, by way of order (pseudo-conservatory attachment) ordered to freeze an account with cryptocurrency, all pending the substantive hearing of the interim proceedings
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Amsterdam District Court, April 17, 2024
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:2195, Rechtspraak.nl Interlocutory judgment. Continued from interlocutory judgment of Feb. 22, 2024 (ex parte order). Plaintiff is a victim of crypto fraud. Order in absentia to provide name and address details of user(s) of account where plaintiff’s crypto coins are located, and to continue freezing account. Note Advocate: If a blockchain tracing report gives a deposit address with a cryptoexchange, it may be a “nested service,” that is, an underlying party that itself also operates as an exchange and uses the liquidity of the first exchange. In that case, the first exchange can be used to sell incoming cryptocurrency (obtained from fraud) after which the proceeds are distributed to the nested service. Only the latter then knows the identity of the end user.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Amsterdam District Court, Feb. 15, 2024 (including Bitvavo)
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:2212, Rechtspraak.nl KG, fraud, cryptocurrency, monetary claim granted, prior freezing order set aside, seizure of assets in a digital custodial wallet is possible, exhibit claims granted. Attorney’s note: if it is a domestic cryptoexchange and the exchange applies asset segregation through a custodial foundation, the customer has a claim against the custodial foundation (provided that this is apparent in so many words from the terms and conditions), and then precautionary and then executory garnishment is possible under the foundation. A freezing order is not necessary in that (domestic) situation. However, most cryptoexchanges do not operate with segregated assets, or do not provide information about them, so in cases of doubt (em with foreign exxhanges in international cases) a freezing order is still possible.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Gelderland District Court, April 12, 2024
ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:2153, Rechtspraak.nl Default, cryptofraud, freeze user account, release user data.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Gelderland District Court, March 21, 2024
ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:1564, Rechtspraak.nl Possible cryptofraud; ex parte injunction request; freezing cryptowallet; service by email
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Central District Court, March 21, 2024
ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2024:2007, Rechtspraak.nl Interlocutory injunction. Possible cryptofraud; Interim injunction (order, ex parte) ; freezing cryptowallet; service by email.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Zeeland-West Brabant District Court, March 20, 2024
ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:1874, Rechtspraak.nl Preliminary injunction (orderly measure) under Article 223 Rv. Cryptocurrency fraud.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Amsterdam District Court, November 10, 2023
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:7228, Rechtspraak.nl Interlocutory appeal. Continued from interlocutory judgment of August 28, 2023 (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:6218). Plaintiff is a victim of crypto fraud. Defendant is ordered in absentia to provide the name and address details of the person in whose name the wallet in which plaintiff’s crypto coins reside is registered.
Amsterdam District Court, Aug. 28, 2023
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:6218, Rechtspraak.nl Interlocutory order granting an ex parte order, similar to the leave to foreclose, requiring that a wallet containing cryptocurrencies be frozen pending the oral hearing of the interlocutory order.
