Case study: cross-border crypto recovery — $2.3M frozen at Binance

This article narrates a single anonymised matter from our closed-case library. The underlying facts are real; identifiers and amounts have been generalised. This is not a promise of what we can achieve in any other matter — see our risk disclosure.

Case profile

• Type: investment-platform fraud with pig-butchering entry pattern
• Jurisdictions involved: Hong Kong SAR (freezing), Singapore (execution), US (criminal referral)
• Claimed loss: $2.3M equivalent, deposited in three tranches over 11 weeks
• Outcome: approximately 67% recovered via civil settlement after freezing; 33% unrecoverable

Timeline

Days 1–7 after intake

On-chain tracing identified deposits to two Binance hot-wallet addresses within the trace window. The operator had not yet consolidated and cashed out.

Days 8–14

We filed for a Norwich Pharmacal order against Binance's Hong Kong entity, supported by the traced deposit-address mapping. The order was granted and the relevant accounts were identified.

Days 15–30

A Mareva injunction was issued by the Court of First Instance. Binance froze the identified accounts before material further movement. Approximately 67% of the claimed amount was contained.

Days 31–90

Civil settlement negotiation with the identified account-holder produced a return of the frozen amount net of fees. The counterparty conceded on the record rather than defending.

Days 91–180

An IC3 criminal referral was made in parallel. The referral did not produce a prosecution within our window, but preserved the record for any later action by the FBI's field office.

What worked

• Speed. Intake-to-freezing was under 30 days. The operator had not moved funds downstream.
• Jurisdictional anchor. Binance's Hong Kong entity is a regulated counterparty with established procedures.
• Clean evidence. The client had preserved conversation history and transaction records from the outset.

What did not work

• The remaining 33%. An earlier tranche had been routed through a mixing service before we were engaged. That portion remains unrecovered; the closing report documents the route for any future reopening.
• Cross-border criminal pursuit was not a productive track within our window.

What we would do differently

• Faster initial assessment. The assessment phase took 10 business days; in retrospect 5 would have sufficed and would have moved the freezing application earlier. We now triage Asia-Pacific exchange matters more aggressively at intake.
• Preservation letters before the Mareva. Preservation letters to Binance upon intake might have achieved a soft hold a week earlier. The result in this matter was the same because the operator did not move in that window, but the approach generalises better.

Disclosure

This narrative has been reviewed by counsel and approved for publication. It is illustrative and does not guarantee a similar outcome in any other matter. Our full case-outcome distribution — including unsuccessful matters — is published on the Cases page.