This article examines trends and developments in judgment enforcement in the United States, which remains an active and popular place to litigate and enforce judgments. It takes a look at two issues: the evolving tools and legal strategies for locating and reaching digital assets, and the use of US courts to enforce arbitral awards against foreign sovereigns.

Locating and Securing Digital Assets

As cryptocurrency and other blockchain-based financial instruments increase their reach and popularity, it is increasingly common for individuals and entities to store significant value in digital assets. These holdings pose difficult enforcement challenges, and courts and creditors must use the tools available to them – and use them quickly – to preserve assets.

The pseudonymous nature of many cryptocurrencies makes it difficult to link a wallet address to a specific individual. Wallets do not require government-issued identification to open or maintain, and transfers occur outside the banking system. Self-custodial wallets further complicate matters by eliminating intermediaries entirely – if a debtor possesses their private key, they retain sole control over the funds. Without co-operation from the custodian, the contents of such a wallet are nearly impossible to seize or access.

Digital assets can also be moved across borders swiftly and easily and with no regulatory oversight. A judgment debtor could, within seconds, move millions of dollars in digital currency to another wallet, exchange it for privacy-enhanced tokens or convert it through a decentralised exchange, making the assets virtually untraceable. This fluidity often undermines traditional post-judgment remedies such as garnishment or account levies.

Identifying and preserving crypto-assets in litigation

New strategies are evolving to meet these challenges, and at the same time, courts and counsel are applying existing legal mechanisms to the crypto environment.

A new industry of blockchain analytics firms specialises in analysing blockchain transactions, linking wallet addresses to known exchanges, services or threat actors. These firms use clustering techniques (grouping blockchain addresses to determine the owner), network analysis (understanding large-scale blockchain dynamics by analysing transaction flow), transactional graph analysis (using visual representations of the flow of transactions on a blockchain to help understand relationships between addresses) and heuristic algorithms (flagging suspicious activities by identifying behaviours that deviate from norms) to assist lawyers in tracing and identifying asset flows.

At the same time, practitioners are using existing tools under federal and state law to identify and, in some cases, freeze crypto-assets.

Courts have shown a willingness to grant discovery requests early in litigation, particularly when there is credible risk of dissipation. In Jacobo v Doe, a federal court in California authorised expedited subpoenas to major cryptocurrency exchanges to obtain identifying information associated with pseudonymous wallet addresses in order to determine the defendant’s legal identity. The plaintiff had used blockchain analytics to follow her stolen digital assets to specific cryptocurrency wallets on various cryptocurrency exchanges, and the court granted discovery insofar as the requests facilitated the identification of a defendant in order to facilitate service of process. The court, however, did not grant the plaintiff all the relief she wanted; it declined to order expedited discovery regarding transactions involving the wallets or the exchanges’ communications with the wallet accountholders. 2022 WL 2079766 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2022).

Similarly, in another recent case, Tyson v Coinbase, the plaintiff moved to request pre-discovery subpoenas within days of filing his complaint. The plaintiff alleged the anonymous theft of Bitcoin and sought identifying details from exchanges hosting the wallets in question. The court reviewed similar cases granting expedited discovery, and, finding Jacobo persuasive, limited the discovery to “enough information to identify the Doe Defendants and serve process”, but left any other discovery for later in the case. 2024 WL 69929 (D. N.J. Jan. 4, 2024).

And, in ZG Top Technology Co. v John Doe, 2019 WL 917418 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2019), the court permitted early discovery from Bittrex, allowing the plaintiff expedited discovery for the purpose of identifying the unknown hacker before formal service of process had occurred.

In addition to expedited discovery, courts at the federal and state levels have also embraced temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to prevent assets from being dissipated during an action.

At the federal level, for example, in the Jacobo case discussed above, the court issued a temporary restraining order based on a specific showing that the crypto holdings in question “pose[d] a heightened risk of asset dissipation”. 2022 WL 2052637 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2022) (quoting Fed. Trade Comm’n v Dluca, 2018 WL 1830800 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 1811904 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2018)). The court explained:

“[C]ryptocurrencies are circulated through a decentralised computer network, without relying on traditional banking institutions or other clearinghouses. This independence from traditional custodians makes it difficult for law enforcement to trace or freeze cryptocurrencies in the event of fraud or theft. If defendant were provided notice of this action, it would be a simple matter for him to transfer the Tether to unidentified recipients outside the traditional banking system, including contacts in foreign countries, and effectively put it beyond the reach of this court.” Id. (quoting Dluca, 2018 WL 1830800 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2018)).

Similarly, in Licht v Ling, a federal court in Texas granted injunctive relief to freeze wallets identified by a blockchain forensics and cybercrime investigative firm and allow for expedited discovery after finding the “[d]efendants could continue to launder away [the plaintiff’s] money to further thwart traceability and prevent potential recovery, which would inflict irreparable harm”. The court also ordered that “all movement, alteration, or destruction of books, records, and accounts related to the above-listed wallets is prohibited”, and it granted “expedited discovery to speedily identify the Defendants, as well as to promote efficient and just resolution of this dispute”. 2023 WL 4504585 (N.D. Tex. June 20, 2023).

It is worth noting that in Licht, the plaintiff supported his application with evidence from a blockchain forensics company, including report from a forensics investigator that detailed the “rationale behind freezing the specific twenty wallets in question”. This appears to have helped convince the court that freezing the wallets was appropriate at an early stage in the case. 

Similar to federal law, state law provides its own tools to prevent the dissipation of assets. For example, New York’s procedural law, the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), permits parties to take steps to protect a future judgment. Under CPLR § 5229, courts may restrain asset transfers before judgment where there is a demonstrated risk to enforcement. In Morozov v ICOBOX Hub, the court invoked this authority to enjoin a defendant from transferring any property, including Bitcoin, based on findings that the defendant operated entirely in digital currency and that crypto’s anonymity increased the risk of evasion. 2020 WL 5665639, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020) (applying New York law), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 5665563 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2020).

Other provisions of New York law – CPLR § 6201 and § 6211 – provide for the attachment of assets. In Trebco Specialty Prods. Inc. v Schedule A Defendants, the court ordered financial institutions to locate and restrain any accounts associated with the defendants, including cryptocurrency wallets and funds. Trebco Specialty Prods. Inc. v Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships, & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to Complaint, 2022 WL 19520884 (E.D.N.Y. May 11, 2022). Similarly, in Winklevoss Capital Fund v Shrem, the court authorised the attachment of 5,000 Bitcoin or their equivalent value, freezing the assets to preserve those assets pending outcome of the case. Winklevoss Capital Fund v Charles Shrem (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2018) (No. 18-cv-08250-JSR, ECF No. 30).

Identifying and using crypto to satisfy judgments

The pre-judgment tools discussed above are helpful for plaintiffs who commence litigation in the United States. But what about creditors with a foreign judgment seeking to enforce that judgment through US courts? Both federal and state law have provisions for broad post-judgment discovery of assets.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) allow a judgment creditor to obtain discovery from the judgment debtor or third parties in aid of execution, using either the FRCP or procedures of the state where the court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2). In New York, CPLR § 5223 provides a broad mechanism for post-judgment discovery, allowing judgment creditors to “compel disclosure of all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment”. These rules, and other state analogues, empower creditors to compel disclosure of information related to digital assets, including cryptocurrency wallets and transactions, whether held directly by the debtor or by third-party custodians such as cryptocurrency exchanges.

Emerging trends

Looking ahead, the role of digital asset tracing, injunctive relief, expedited discovery and pre-judgment attachment will likely grow as courts seem increasingly comfortable with expedited subpoenas, ex parte injunctions and forensic analysis of blockchain data as a standard part of judgment collection strategy.

Devas v Antrix: Arbitration Awards Against Foreign Sovereigns

A second development worth highlighting here is the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. v Antrix Corporation Ltd., which presented a closely-watched issue of whether claimants seeking to enforce an arbitral award against a foreign state must show that the respondent has “minimum contacts” with the US forum before a US court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the respondent under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

Background

In January 2005, Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. (“Devas”), an Indian telecommunications start-up, entered into a lease agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd. (“Antrix”), the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation. The agreement gave Devas access to capacity on a new satellite network being launched by Antrix, which Devas planned to use for a nationwide mobile multimedia service. 145 S. Ct. 1572 (2025).

In 2011, the Indian Government annulled the deal, stating that it required the network capacity Antrix was going to lease to Devas. Antrix claimed that it was released under the lease agreement’s force majeure clause. Devas responded by initiating arbitration under the rules of the ICC, alleging that the Indian Government’s intervention was a self-induced breach of contract. The arbitral panel found that Antrix had wrongfully terminated the contract and awarded Devas USD562.5 million in damages.

Devas’s efforts to locate and reach assets

Following its arbitration victory, Devas took steps to enforce the award in several jurisdictions. After securing recognition of the award in France and the UK, Devas sought to confirm the award in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The District Court entered judgment in favour of Devas in the amount of USD1.29 billion, which included the award amount and post-award interest. But enforcement efforts did not proceed smoothly. Before Devas could collect the award, an Indian tribunal found that Devas had obtained the contract with Antrix by fraud and ordered its assets to be seized and its affairs wound down.

During this time, a group of intervenors, comprising US-based shareholders of Devas and its American subsidiary (the “Intervenors”), joined the lawsuit. The Intervenors argued that Antrix had been attempting to transfer or hide assets to avoid enforcement, particularly by shifting commercial functions to a new state-owned company called NewSpace India Ltd. (“NewSpace”), which was fully owned and operated by India’s Department of Space. Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v Antrix Corp. Ltd., C18-1360 TSZ (D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021) (ECF. No. 133).

The Intervenors invoked FRCP 69(a)(2) to obtain post-judgment discovery, including subpoenas and interrogatories directed at Antrix and affiliated third parties. The court granted the motion in part, allowing discovery “related to Respondent’s assets and asset transfers, both within and outside of the United States, and related to Respondent’s relationship to the Government of India and NewSpace...” This allowed the Intervenors to investigate whether NewSpace was serving as a vehicle for removing Antrix’s assets in order to avoid enforcement of the arbitral award.

Discovery revealed the presence of assets potentially subject to garnishment or attachment in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Intervenors registered the judgment in that jurisdiction and prepared to seize any attachable assets belonging to Antrix or held in the United States on its behalf. The Ninth Circuit, however, reversed the District Court’s confirmation of the award, holding that Antrix lacked minimum contacts with the forum state to support personal jurisdiction under traditional due process principles.

The US Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment. The Court clarified that 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b) – the FSIA’s jurisdictional provision – does not require the usual “minimum contacts” analysis under the Due Process Clause. Instead, so long as a sovereign is properly served and an exception to sovereign immunity applies, US courts have jurisdiction over the foreign sovereign.

Broader implications

Devas v Antrix underscores the ability of judgment creditors to pursue foreign sovereigns in US courts without having to establish personal jurisdiction where an exception to immunity under the FSIA applies and proper service is made. The Supreme Court clarified that traditional due process constraints do not apply under the statutory procedural framework of the FSIA. While the ruling does not expand substantive tools for judgment enforcement, it removes a potential hurdle for creditors seeking confirmation and enforcement of arbitral awards against foreign sovereigns. This should provide more predictability for individuals and companies looking to enforce arbitral awards against sovereign entities that have assets based in the United States.