Key takeaways on digital asset tracing & enforcement

Asset recovery

March 19, 2026

Tom Brown & Rupert Black

Summary

Digital assets and cryptocurrencies are becoming an increasingly common feature of commercial disputes. Recovering value from this novel asset class presents unique challenges and opportunities for litigants, advisers and funders alike.

In Burford Capital’s recent webcast, an expert panel of digital-asset recovery practitioners discussed practical, legal and strategic considerations for tracing and enforcing rights against crypto and other digital assets in a cross-border context.

The evolving cross-border landscape

Panelists emphasized that enforcement and regulatory approaches vary significantly across major jurisdictions, and that understanding these differences is critical for effective tracing and recovery of digital assets.

The UK is advancing a formal regulatory regime for virtual asset service providers and stablecoin issuers, set to open for registration later this year and come fully into force by 2027. This will bring many crypto firms under familiar financial regulatory frameworks, affecting compliance obligations and enforcement pathways.
Hong Kong is tightening controls on virtual asset trading platforms, with a licensing regime under the Securities and Futures Commission designed to bring more robust oversight to crypto exchanges and bolster trust in regulated platforms.
The Cayman Island is a leading hub for digital asset structures and hosts a large proportion of global crypto hedge funds and Web3 foundations. Enforcement here often involves dealing with corporate vehicles like Cayman foundation companies that sit behind treasury wallets and require careful legal navigation.
In Canada, courts apply a “real and substantial connection” test for jurisdiction, with evolving case law around production orders and enforcement against crypto intermediaries; Canada’s first search and seizure order against crypto assets was a notable recent development. In the US, courts use a “minimum contacts” standard to assess jurisdiction over service providers, raising distinct questions of fairness and connection when seeking data or asset preservation from third-party VASPs.

Unique challenges of digital asset enforcement

Digital assets present distinct enforcement challenges compared with traditional forms of property. Their pseudonymous nature and the ability to transfer value instantaneously across borders can make attribution and tracing significantly more complex without specialized forensic expertise. Recovery efforts frequently depend on cooperation from third-party intermediaries, including exchanges, wallet providers and other VASPs, which may be unwilling to disclose key information absent court intervention. Digital asset transactions can be layered through hundreds or even thousands of addresses, requiring detailed blockchain analysis and carefully documented evidence to establish ownership and linkage to satisfy judicial scrutiny.

At the same time, panelists noted that courts are increasingly prepared to respond robustly where conduct appears evasive. Production orders, disclosure relief and preservation measures are becoming more common, particularly where structures resemble a “shell game” designed to frustrate enforcement.

Strategic tools and practical guidance for digital asset recovery

Successful recovery of digital assets requires both technical expertise and early strategic planning. The panel highlighted several tools and practical considerations that can materially improve recovery prospects:

Blockchain tracing and forensic analysis is essential to reconstruct asset flows, support court applications and strengthen negotiating leverage. Reports must be rigorous, well-documented and capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny.
Civil litigation tools can often secure production of key data and preservation of assets more efficiently than relying solely on criminal processes, particularly when targeting exchanges and other VASPs.
Insolvency proceedings, including winding up entities that hold or control digital assets, can provide a powerful mechanism for compelling structured recoveries where direct tracing or voluntary cooperation is limited.
Collectability and jurisdictional strategy should be assessed at the outset of a dispute, not after judgment, to anticipate cross-border hurdles and tailor applications to local procedural frameworks.
Digital asset recovery frequently requires coordination between forensic analysts and lawyers with specific expertise in crypto-related disputes.

Conclusion

Digital asset enforcement remains complex, but regulatory clarity, evolving judicial approaches and sophisticated forensic tools are expanding what is possible for claimants. As digital assets become increasingly embedded in commercial disputes, thoughtful cross-border strategy is critical to protecting and realizing value.

To learn more about Burford’s approach to enforcement and digital asset recovery, contact our team.

This material has been prepared by Burford Capital Limited (together with its subsidiaries, “Burford Capital”) solely for informational purposes, is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast, research or investment advice and is not a recommendation, offer or solicitation to subscribe for, buy or sell any securities, products or services or to adopt any investment strategy. The opinions expressed in this material are as of the date of this material and are subject to change at any time without notice, and Burford Capital does not have any responsibility to update this material to account for such changes. Unless otherwise specified, information contained in this material is sourced from and reflects the views and opinions of Burford Capital. Certain information contained in this material has been obtained from sources other than Burford Capital. While such information is believed to be reliable for purposes used in this material, no representation or warranty, either express or implied, is made as to fairness, accuracy, reasonableness or completeness thereof, and Burford Capital does not take any responsibility for such information. Certain information contained in this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad-based economic, market or political conditions and should not be construed as research or investment advice. There can be no assurances that any of the trends described in this material will continue or will not reverse. Past events and trends do not imply, predict or guarantee, and are not necessarily indicative of, future events or results. The information contained in this material is not intended to provide, and should not be relied upon for, accounting, legal or tax advice or investment recommendations. Reliance upon information in this material is at the sole discretion of the reader.

This material may contain “forward-looking statements”. Although Burford Capital believes that the assumptions, expectations, projections, intentions and beliefs about future results and events reflected in forward-looking statements have a reasonable basis and are expressed in good faith, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause Burford Capital’s actual results and events to differ materially from (and be more negative than) future results and events expressed, targeted, projected or implied by these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this material and, except as required by applicable law, Burford Capital undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.