As an attorney in crypto fraud cases, I regularly see how crucial speed is in securing or not securing stolen digital assets. One of the biggest challenges here is the timely summoning of foreign cryptoexchanges for so-called “freezing orders” or pseudo-conservatory attachments. These legal tools are essential to freezing the accounts of suspected fraudsters, but traditional methods of summoning can be too slow in the fast-paced world of cryptocurrency.
Ordinary summoning is too slow
Fraudsters almost always send stolen crypto to foreign cryotoexchanges. Under Dutch law, a case against a foreign party cannot be heard in absentia until a certificate of service has been returned from abroad. This goes through all sorts of bureaucratic channels and can take months – precious time during which fraudsters have the opportunity to cash out stolen cryptocurrency and disappear without a trace.
Can service also be done by e-mail?
To address this problem, we use an innovative approach inspired by the Supreme Court’s 2007 Yukos case. This recognized that for urgent summary proceedings, provable delivery of the summons via courier can also be valid. We are now applying this principle to crypto fraud cases by informing cryptoexchanges via email.
This method allows the fraud victim to:
-
Quick to act, often within days rather than months
-
Proof of receipt to be obtained by digital means
-
Significantly increase the likelihood of successful asset freezes.
Scope of freezing orders
A crucial aspect of this approach is the use of “freezing orders. These court orders go beyond simply freezing the specifically stolen cryptocurrency. They can:
-
Freeze all crypto assets as well as cash in a suspected account
-
Securing other digital assets for possible recourse
-
Prevent fraudsters from moving, converting, or withdrawing profits through credit cards or ATMs.
This means that even if the originally stolen crypto has already been converted into other forms held in the account, sometimes there are still options for recourse and compensation. Unfortunately, it also happens that accounts have been drained anyway in the period between the transmission of the stolen crypto and the freezing of the account. Furthermore, not every exchange cooperates with the freeze. This prompted Dutch courts to impose high fines of up to about 2 million euros.
Recent case law recognizes notice via email
A recent ruling by the District Court of North Holland (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:138) confirms the effectiveness of this method. In this case, a foreign cryptoexchange (MEXC Global Limited) was successfully summoned via e-mail for summary proceedings. The court recognized the validity of this summons method given the urgency of the case and the provable receipt of the summons. This court also applied the method in a case against another cryptoexchange(ECLI:NLRBNHO:2025:2348). Earlier, the District Court of Rotterdam applied the method to cryptoexchange Whitebit from Hong Kong(ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:6723). The District Court of Amsterdam has applied the method on several occasions (see, among others, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:6990).
Conclusion
For victims of crypto fraud, this new approach offers hope. By using fast, digital communication methods and broad freezing orders, we can more effectively combat international crypto fraud. This significantly increases the chances of securing stolen assets, even in a rapidly changing digital environment.
If you have become a victim of crypto fraud, acting quickly is crucial. Contact a specialized attorney immediately to discuss your options and determine the best strategy for your particular situation.
