Cryptocurrency Fraud and Cross-Border Asset Preservation
Cryptocurrency can be transferred across international borders within minutes, creating significant challenges for victims seeking to recover assets lost through fraud. Where stolen cryptocurrency is held by an exchange headquartered outside Canada, victims may face an additional obstacle: whether Canadian courts have jurisdiction to order the preservation of those assets.
This issue is at the centre of R. v. Binance Holdings Limited, (“Binance”)[i], an Ontario Superior Court decision that the Supreme Court of Canada has recently agreed to review. The appeal could have significant implications for Canadian victims of cryptocurrency fraud seeking to preserve assets held by foreign exchanges.
The case was also recently featured in an October 5, 2026 article in The Globe and Mail, “Supreme Court to test legal system’s limits for Canadian victims of cryptocurrency fraud”,[ii] which included commentary from Walker Law’s founder, Tanya Walker.
The Superior Court Binance Decision: Can Canadian Courts Restrain Cryptocurrency Held by Foreign Exchanges?
The case arose after a Canadian individual was allegedly defrauded of approximately $65,000 worth of Bitcoin by three Nigerian citizens. Investigators traced the cryptocurrency to three accounts held through Binance, a global cryptocurrency exchange. The Attorney General of Ontario subsequently applied for restraint and management orders under the Criminal Code to preserve the assets.[iii]
The accounts were controlled by Nest Services Limited (“Nest”), a corporation headquartered in the Seychelles. Binance opposed the application on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that Nest was not present in Canada and that the Canadian courts therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue the requested orders against it.[iv]
Virtual Presence May Be Sufficient to Establish Jurisdiction
In determining whether the Court had jurisdiction over Nest, Justice Forestell applied the test established in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Brecknell.[v]
Under this framework, a foreign corporation may be considered present in Canada where its business activities establish a sufficient virtual presence, even if it has no physical offices or headquarters in the country.
Justice Forestell found that Nest had a sufficient virtual presence in Canada, relying on several factors:[vi]
- Nest maintained approximately 248,114 Ontario Binance accounts, holding roughly $35.8 million in assets.
- Although Binance had announced its withdrawal from Canada in 2023, existing Ontario account holders could still conduct limited transactions, including withdrawals.
- Transaction fees continued to be charged, notwithstanding the availability of reimbursement for certain transactions.
Consequently, the Court granted restraint and management orders against Nest and the two Canadian corporations.[vii]
The Supreme Court Appeal: What Is at Stake for Cryptocurrency Fraud Victims?
The Supreme Court of Canada has granted permission to appeal the Superior Court’s decision, bringing the jurisdictional limits of criminal restraint orders under renewed scrutiny.
The outcome may affect the ability of Canadian authorities to obtain restraint and management orders against foreign exchanges that continue to maintain Canadian assets. This is particularly significant because cryptocurrency can be transferred rapidly between digital wallets and exchanges, potentially placing it beyond the practical reach of Canadian proceedings.
As Tanya Walker observed in The Globe and Mail: “The ability to preserve assets before they are moved can materially affect the prospects of eventual recovery, although preservation itself does not guarantee that the funds will be returned.”[viii]
Worldwide Mareva Injunctions: Walker Law’s Experience in Dario v. Pleterski
The challenges associated with preserving cryptocurrency across international borders are not new to Canadian courts.
In Dario v. Pleterski (“Pleterski”),[ix] Walker Law successfully obtained a temporary worldwide Mareva injunction on behalf of investors who alleged that they had been defrauded of approximately $4.565 million by Aiden Pleterski and AP Private Equity Ltd.
A Mareva injunction is an extraordinary civil remedy designed to prevent defendants from disposing of or transferring assets that may otherwise be unavailable to satisfy a future judgment.
The injunction prohibited the defendants from dissipating assets worldwide, subject to specified exceptions, and expressly included cryptocurrency held in an identified Bitcoin wallet.[x]
The order also required worldwide asset disclosure and directed several financial institutions, including FXChoice, a brokerage headquartered in Belize, to freeze relevant assets and disclose account information.[xi]
A Canadian court’s authority to issue a worldwide injunction does not automatically mean that the order will be recognized or enforced in every foreign jurisdiction. Where assets are held abroad, effective preservation may depend on recognition and cooperation by foreign institutions.
Although the Belizean court was not automatically bound by the Canadian injunction, the order was nevertheless recognized, demonstrating how Canada’s reputation for judicial integrity and transparency can facilitate international cooperation in cross-border disputes.
What Should Victims of Cryptocurrency Fraud Consider?
The decisions in Binance and Pleterski demonstrate that Canadian law provides mechanisms for preserving assets connected to alleged cryptocurrency fraud, including where foreign jurisdictions or financial institutions are involved.
For individuals and businesses seeking to recover cryptocurrency, several considerations are particularly important:
- Acting quickly to preserve assets. Cryptocurrency can be transferred or converted rapidly. Delays in pursuing preservation remedies may significantly reduce the prospects of eventual recovery.
- Foreign cryptocurrency exchanges may be subject to Canadian court orders. As illustrated in Binance, a cryptocurrency exchange’s incorporation outside Canada does not necessarily place it beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian courts. Its business activities and connections to Canada may provide a sufficient basis for Canadian courts to exercise jurisdiction, even in the absence of a physical presence.
- International recognition and enforcement may present an obstacle. Where assets are held abroad, a Canadian court order may be only one part of the recovery process. Additional proceedings or cooperation in foreign jurisdictions may be necessary.
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming consideration of Binance may provide important guidance on the jurisdiction of Canadian courts over foreign cryptocurrency exchanges. In the meantime, Pleterski also illustrates the existing availability of civil remedies to preserve assets where there is a serious risk of dissipation.
How Our Team Can Assist You
Walker Law has experience pursuing civil fraud claims and obtaining worldwide asset-preservation relief, including the Mareva injunction granted in Dario v. Pleterski.
Walker Law can assist you with a variety of legal matters, including disputes involving Employment Litigation Law, Civil Litigation Law, Commercial Litigation Law, and Contract Disputes.
[i] R. v. Binance Holdings Limited, 2025 ONSC 7113 (CanLII) [“Binance”].
[ii] Posadzki, A. (2026, October 5). Supreme Court to test legal system’s limits for Canadian victims of cryptocurrency fraud. The Globe and Mail [“Globe”].
[iii] Binance at paras 1-2.
[iv] Ibid at paras 3 and 8.
[v] Ibid at para 14.
[vi] Ibid at para 66.
[vii] Ibid at para 83.
[viii] Globe, supra note 2.
[ix] Dario v. Pleterski, 2022 ONSC 4036 [“Pleterski”].
[x] Ibid at “Schedule A” para 1 (b).
[xi] Ibid at “Schedule A” para 8.