Imagine you have been defrauded of your life savings. Now imagine that you have realised the person who defrauded you wasn’t who they said they were. They aren’t responding to any communications, and you don’t know how else to reach them. Fortunately, you have managed to locate the money that the fraudster misappropriated. However, the person or entity with control over the funds is not in the jurisdiction and isn’t cooperating with requests to help. Now what? The victim may be tempted to start proceedings. But would that be throwing good money after bad? And if regulators or prosecutors become involved, will that materially improve the chances of recovery? All of these are questions facing individuals who have been scammed, their money converted into cryptocurrency and that cryptocurrency held by HTX (formerly Huobi).
Huobi/HTX
HTX is a provider of crypto asset exchange services. According to Particulars of Claim filed by the FCA, in 2023, the HTX exchange was the sixth most accessed virtual asset service provider in the UK. The FCA understands that the HTX exchange was previously owned and/or controlled by Huobi Global Limited (“Huobi Seychelles”), incorporated in the Seychelles. However, after Huobi Seychelles was struck off the corporate register in October 2023, lawyers who previously acted for it stated that Huobi Global SA, incorporated in Panama (“Huobi Panama”), claimed to be the operator of HTX. It appears that, despite requests from them to do so, HTX did not volunteer their corporate identity to the FCA, leading the FCA to issue proceedings against Huobi Panama and persons unknown.
The FCA Proceedings
The FCA seeks an injunction and declaratory relief against those in control of HTX on the basis that they have engaged in unauthorised financial promotions (contrary to s.21 Financial Services and Markets Act). The FCA commenced these proceedings on 21 October 2025 and obtained permission to serve the proceedings out of the jurisdiction and by alternative service on the solicitors representing Huobi Panama in the UK. On 31 March 2026, the FCA and Huobi Panama agreed to stay the proceedings for 3 months in an effort to arrive at a settlement.
The sanctions
In a move that may well impact on the possibility of any such settlement, on 26 May 2026, the UK Government designated Huobi Panama pursuant to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The designation was made on the basis that the company was suspected of having provided financial services to a person carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to the Government of Russia.
Civil proceedings
In the meantime, victims of scams have been issuing claims against Huobi in the English courts. Amongst other things, these victims advance claims against Huobi on the basis that they hold assets by way of a constructive trust. The victims also seek information from Huobi Panama to identify those who scammed them. In a number of reported crypto-fraud cases, claimants have obtained freezing, proprietary and/or disclosure relief in the English courts against Huobi-related entities. In the cases for which public documents, outlining what has happened in the proceedings, are available, where Huobi had been ordered to provide information, it failed to comply with those orders (and see Wilden v Person Unknown & Anor [2026] EWHC 1355 (KB), Jones v Persons Unknown & Ors [2025] EWHC 1823 (Comm), Smithers & Anor v Persons Unknown Category 1 & Ors, Mannarino v Persons Unknown & Ors [2023] EWHC 3176 (Ch), Mooij v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 814 (Comm)). However, in at least one instance, it complied with an order to transfer cryptocurrency to a victim, albeit that subsequent proceedings suggested that the exchange had reimbursed itself from assets in a wallet that were not traceable to the fraud against the victim (Jones v Persons Unknown & Ors [2025] EWHC 1823 (Comm)).
So what?
Potential claimants seeking to recover assets by way of court proceedings in England and Wales must undertake a difficult balancing exercise in which the cost of the proceedings is weighed against the likelihood of recovery. Unfortunately, it is often the case that to obtain the amount of information necessary to better evaluate the prospects of recovery requires at least some initial outlay, for instance on experts who can follow crypto assets. The risk of throwing good money after bad may be easier to justify when the sums at stake are in the millions, but even then, claimants should still keep their spending under review at all stages of the proceedings with an eye to whether further expenditure is likely to improve the prospects of recovery. This is because, even if assets can be located, if they are out of the jurisdiction, enforcement may still be extremely difficult and expensive.
Interventions by the Government and the FCA are now additional factors that claimants looking to HTX will need to take into account. At the time of writing, the impact of these interventions is difficult to assess. It may be that HTX simply withdraws from all interactions with the UK. Equally, it may seek to demonstrate a greater degree of compliance in order to improve its regulatory position.
