Wayne Murry v Persons Unknown & Anor

I am satisfied that the application to join Mr. Orogun as a named Defendant is one that I should accede to. The claim which is made against Mr. Orogun is a proprietary claim by which the Claimant seeks to trace either cryptocurrency stolen from the Claimant into wallets controlled by Mr. Orogun or to trace the proceeds of sale or conversion of the cryptocurrency stolen from the Claimant into those wallets. Absent a defence by Mr. Orogun to the effect that he is a bona fide purchaser for value of the assets concerned, he would be liable on the basis that the assets that were stolen from the Claimant were impressed with a constructive trust meaning that the Claimant is entitled to recover the property as long as he is able to trace it in accordance with conventional English legal principles unless and until those assets (or their transitable proceeds) have been acquired by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the theft. .

I am satisfied, to the low standard that is required, that the Claimant has demonstrated that there is at least a realistically arguable basis on the material that is currently available, for saying that Mr. Orogun is the controller or at any rate the named individual who has apparently got control of the wallet or wallets to which part of the cryptocurrency stolen from the Claimant has been transferred. In those circumstances, as it seems to me, it is appropriate that I should give permission for Mr. Orogun to be joined as a named Defendant, he already having been a party to these proceedings by falling within the class of the Second Defendant persons unknown on the basis of the evidence on which the claimant relies.

In the course of hearing Mr. Orogun asked me whether or not he would be prejudiced by being joined as a Defendant. Aside from the fact that all Defendants to some extent are prejudiced when they are joined as a party to litigation simply by virtue of being a party to the litigation, I was able to assure him that he had an unfettered right to defend the claim, including but not limited to applying either to have the claim against him struck out or by seeking summary judgment in his favour if he is able to demonstrate that the evidential basis for the claim made against him is non-existent and/or the claim is bound to fail in law.

This is an application to join Simple Systems LLC, a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, that arises in the following broad circumstances.

As already explained earlier in this judgment and in two previous judgments I have delivered in these proceedings, the Claimant suffered a wholesale theft of his cryptocurrency assets apparently as a result of the compromise of the security on his devices, which enabled a person or persons unknown to obtain access to the codes, which enabled access to be obtained to the Claimant’s wallet or wallets, for his crypto assets to be removed from those wallets and moved to multiple different locations. and the issue that I am now concerned with relates to the movement of some of what are alleged to have been the claimant’s assets ultimately to Simple Systems LLC. The evidence concerning the research carried out to date by the Claimant’s expert demonstrates that about 4,782,000 TDROP assets were removed from the Claimant’s Ledger wallet, first to an intermediary address and then to a wallet in the control of Gate.io, an exchange. Correspondence then ensued between the Claimant’s solicitors and Gate.io, and the result of that information was that the account receiving the funds at Gate.io was identified by Gate.io as being owned by Simple Systems LLC.

There is a debate, which is yet to be resolved, as to whether or not Simple Systems LLC is controlled by a Ms. Anna Anisimova. The difficulty about that is she operates as a nominee shareholder within the Republic of Cyprus and it is not at all clear at the moment as to whether or not she is beneficially interested in Simple Systems LLC or whether she is identified as a director and possibly also a shareholder on the basis that she acts as a nominee for others or another.

In those circumstances, on a careful and graduated process, the Claimant seeks in the first instance to join Simple Systems LLC as a named Defendant on the basis that the Claimant is entitled to trace, via the relatively short chain I have described earlier in this judgment, assets taken from him into the wallet ostensibly owned by Simple Systems LLC. Since there is no evidence which suggests that Simple Systems LLC could conceivably be a bona fide purchase of a value without notice of the assets transferred into its wallet, on the information that is currently available I have no hesitation in concluding that it is appropriate that it be joined. If it should turn out that Simple Systems LLC is controlled by the persons responsible for the original theft, then the claims which may be made against Simple Systems may go wider than the simple proprietary claim currently contemplated. However, the primary claim is to seek to recover assets in which the Claimant has a proprietary interest. On that basis alone it is appropriate that Simple Systems LLC be joined and I direct that it be joined accordingly.

This is an application on a return date for the continuation of a proprietary freezing order and for a Worldwide Freezing Order.

The only significant changes that have been made to the order from what was previously before me is the addition as respondents to those orders of the individuals who are to be joined into the proceedings as named Defendants. Of those, the only person who has appeared before me to make representations is Mr. Orogun.

Mr. Orogun’s concern was twofold. First of all, he was concerned as a litigant in person to be able to take some limited legal advice before confirming in writing what he previously told the Claimants solicitors, namely he has no assets with a value of £10,000 or more. That has been addressed by a provision within the order which extends his time for complying with that part of the order until 28 days from the date of the order.

Further, since Mr. Orogun is a litigant in person with limited resources apparently available to him to seek legal advice, the solicitors acting for the Claimant very helpfully first of all to accept that a witness statement rather than an affidavit will provide the appropriate written confirmation of the asset position, and secondly to supply, within three days of today’s date, a draft witness statement which confirms the contents of the information supplied by Mr. Orogun to the Claimant’s solicitors. This will be supplied to Mr. Orogun and I make clear that he does not come under any obligation to sign the document. Whether he does is a matter for him, but if he signs it and returns it, it will satisfy the requirements of this order concerning written confirmation of assets. He is of course free not to sign it and he is also free to (indeed should) obtain legal advice before signing it.

The other concern Mr. Orogun had was about his ability to withdraw money from his Revolut bank account in the event that, as he is currently seeking, he obtains employment. So far as that is concerned, I was shown an e-mail sent to Revolut by the Claimant’s solicitors, dated 9th June 2025. Whilst it apparently does confirm to Revolut the legal position following the making of the order, it looks as though Revolut have not responded as positively as it might have done to this information and it is fair to say that the e-mail is expressed in language which is not entirely clear or would not be entirely clear to a junior bank official as to what was required. Therefore I have directed that the Claimant’s solicitors write, by no later than 4pm tomorrow, to Revolut, making clear that Mr. Orogun is entitled to withdraw up to £500 a week from his identified Revolut bank account.

Of course, this creates the potential difficulty that he may have other bank accounts from which similar sums will be withdrawn but that is not the concern of Revolut. All Revolut needs to be told is that Mr. Orogun is entitled to withdraw up to £500 a week from his Revolut identified by number of that bank account and that will give Revolut all the information they need to facilitate what has been directed. There will be liberty to apply.

I am otherwise satisfied that it is appropriate to make the freezing orders and the proprietary order for all the reasons I gave when I first made it, there being no material change of circumstances since then. The individuals who have been joined as Defendants were ensuited in this litigation at an earlier stage by virtue of the definition of the second category of Persons Unknown Defendant and the information which is available in relation to the named Defendants more than satisfies the evidential requirements for the making of orders against the individuals concerned on the factual basis. The risk of dissipation remains as previously identified and applies as much to the newly named defendants as it dit when they were part of the class of unknown persons coming with the second defendants. There is no material which leads me to think that I should revisit that issue and I am not invited to by any of the individuals concerned.

So far as Mr. Orogun and the other individuals are concerned, I draw attention expressly to the fact that each is entitled to apply to vary or discharge the order on short notice, in accordance with the terms of the order, and secondly to remind each of the Respondents, to the extent they are unrepresented, that a failure to comply with these orders, if proved to the criminal standard by the Claimant, would entitle the court to punish the Respondent concerned for contempt of court by imprisonment for up to two years and/or an unlimited fine.