Aurum Advised Client on Recovering $40 Million Worth of Virtual Assets in an Arbitration with a Global Crypto Exchange — Case Study

Overview

Disputes with major exchanges frequently involve multi-jurisdictional considerations, complex corporate structures, and evidentiary challenges unique to digital assets. The client’s priority was a strategy that maximised recovery prospects while managing speed, cost, confidentiality, and enforceability across borders. Aurum acted as strategic counsel, overseeing the end-to-end dispute approach and execution.

The Challenge

The matter raised several challenges requiring early, careful design:

• Jurisdiction and venue selection: multiple plausible forums, each with different procedural tools, interim relief options, timelines, and enforcement dynamics.
• Identifying the correct defendant: the exchange operated through a concealed multi-entity structure, requiring careful analysis and targeted fact-finding to establish the most effective respondent(s).
• Evidence and proof mechanics: ensuring evidence was gathered, preserved, and presented in admissible form, including transaction trails and supporting factual materials.
• Tactics and sequencing: balancing immediate protective steps (where available) against longer-term merits strategy, and coordinating decision-making under time pressure.

Legal Strategy

We structured a coordinated strategy focused on:

1.    selecting a forum that offered the best combination of procedural leverage and enforceability,
2.    ensuring we pursued the correct respondent(s) and framed the claim to withstand jurisdictional and procedural challenges, and
3.    building an evidence package fit for court, with clear linkage between the factual record, custody/control questions, and the relief sought.

Actions Taken

Our work included:

•    leading the forum and venue analysis, including enforcement mapping and practical recovery considerations;
•    conducting a structured entity and counterparty assessment, supported by targeted investigative steps to identify the appropriate defendant(s);
•    coordinating and overseeing local counsel, pleadings, and court process, ensuring a single, coherent strategy across workstreams;
•    designing the evidence and documentation plan, including collection, authentication, and preparation for hearing; and
•    advising on hearing strategy, sequencing, and tactical decision-making to maximise prospects of recovery.

Key Takeaway

In high-value exchange disputes, outcomes often turn on early jurisdiction choices, correct defendant identification, and evidence readiness. A disciplined strategy – combining legal, procedural, and practical enforcement considerations – materially increases the likelihood of an effective recovery path.