Lim Woojung v. An Unknown Person or Persons Who Has Access To or Operates or Holds the Wallet Address Tceyqtujz4kqskycwcv5zqwnfhdhzjv51z and Another

HCA 2337/2025

[2026] HKCFI 5745

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2337 OF 2025

_______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

____________________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________________

1.This is Lim Woojung (“P”)’s application by summons dated 24 July 2026 (“Summons”) for default judgment against the 1^st Defendant (“D1”) only. No default judgment is sought against the 2^nd Defendant (“D2”) (collectively, the “Defendants”).

Relevant background

2.In May 2025, P discovered that she was a victim of an impersonation fraud (“Fraudulent Scheme”) and has, inter alia, been defrauded of 994,696.705351 USDT (with the approximate value of just over HK $7.75 million) (“D1’s Misappropriated Asset”) which, based on P’s current investigation, was received by D1.

3.P’s pleaded case in her Statement of Claim (“SOC”) filed on 22 December 2025 may be summarised as follows:

(i)  On 5 May 2025, P made a shipment of her personal belongings (the “Goods”) from Rome, Italy to Seoul, South Korea through DHL Express Worldwide and received a confirmation notice and invoice via her email account [email protected] (“Naver email address”) and an SMS message.

(ii)  On 6 May 2025, P received two SMS messages from a person (using number: + 82 1588-0001) purporting to be “Mihyeon Kim”, a staff member of DHL Customs Services. P was informed that her shipment had been referred to Customs in Incheon, South Korea and was instructed to provide certain particulars[1] to the designated email address [email protected] (“False Email Address”) for customs clearance which P duly did from her Naver email address.

(iii)  On 9 May 2025, on P’s return to Hong Kong, P received an email on her Naver email address sent from the False Email Address requiring her to complete the customs declaration form attached to the email. P responded by sending the completed form from her Naver email address to the False Email Address.

(iv)  There were multiple unauthorised attempts to log into P’s Naver email address the 2 subsequent days (10-11 May 2025) from unidentified foreign IP addresses.

(v)  On 11 May 2025, P received an email allegedly from “DHL” using the same False Email Address, containing a hyperlink demanding payment of customs duties and taxes. When P clicked on the link, it led to a blank screen and the eventual hacking and unauthorized access of P’s cryptocurrency wallets and email account by unknown fraudsters.

(vi)  On 13 May 2025, when P (who was in Hong Kong) accessed her cryptocurrency wallets in the “ATOMIC Wallet[2]”, one of which bore the address “TReaBTfMmrvZqmuZmqQEq2df1 QJKtSVCq” (“P’s Wallet”), she discovered that on 12 May 2025 at around 10.11pm, a cryptocurrency transaction had been effected from P’s Wallet to D1’s wallet at the address “TCEyqTUjZ4KQskycWcv5zqWnFhdHZJV51Z” (“D1’s Wallet”) without her knowledge, consent or authority involving D1’s Misappropriated Asset[3](the “Transaction”). As P had no dealings with the Defendants, there was and still is no reason for D1 to hold/retain/receive D1’s Misappropriated Asset.

(vii)  On 14 May 2025, DHL informed P that the goods had not been dispatched and were subsequently destroyed due to P’s failure to provide any EU citizen’s identification number.

(viii)  P then realized that fraudster(s) had impersonated DHL (“Fraudsters”) to send the SMS messages and emails (“Fraudulent Messages) and that she had been deceived by the Fraudsters and defrauded.

(ix)  Upon discovery of the Fraudulent Scheme, P reported the matter to the South Korean Police Force and the Hong Kong Police Force respectively as well as Tether Limited Inc (“Tether”), the issuer of the USDT. Tether has since 4 July 2025 temporarily frozen the D1’s Misappropriated Asset in D1’s Wallet.

Procedural chronology

4.P obtained an order from Master Cruden on 11 March 2026 (the “March Order”) granting P leave to issue and serve the same and several court documents (collectively, the “Documents”) out of the jurisdiction by way of substituted service[4] on the Defendants.

5.P issued the Concurrent Writ of Summons (“Writ”) on 27 March 2026 and duly effected service on the Defendants the same day pursuant to the March Order[5].

6.Although not required under the rules to do so, P also effected service of the documents described in §5 of the 2^nd affirmation of service filed on 8 October 2026 on D1 on 30 September 2026.

7.§3 of the March Order required a Defendant wishing to defend the action to acknowledge service within 28 days of being served. No acknowledgement of service has been filed by the Defendants.

Relevant principles

8.P’s application is based on the provisions of RHC O.13, r.6(1) and O.19, r.7 which provide as follows:

6. Other claims (O. 13, r. 6)

(1)  Where a writ is indorsed with a claim of a description not mentioned in rules 1 to 4, then, if any defendant fails to give notice of intention to defend, the plaintiff may, after the prescribed time and, if that defendant has not acknowledged service, upon filing an affidavit proving due service of the writ on him and, where the statement of claim was not indorsed on or served with the writ, upon serving a statement of claim on him, proceed with the action as if that defendant had given notice of intention to defend.

7. Default of defence: other claims (O. 19, r. 7)

(1)  (Where the plaintiff makes against a defendant or defendants a claim of a description not mentioned in rules 2 to 5, then, if the defendant or all the defendants (where there is more than one) fails or fail to serve a defence on the plaintiff, the plaintiff may, after the expiration of the period fixed by or under these rules for service of the defence, apply to the Court for judgment, and on the hearing of the application the Court shall give such judgment as the plaintiff appears entitled to on his statement of claim.

(2)  Where the plaintiff makes such a claim as is mentioned in paragraph (1) against more than one defendant, then, if one of the defendants makes default as mentioned in that paragraph, the plaintiff may—

(a)  if his claim against the defendant in default is severable from his claim against the other defendants, apply under that paragraph for judgment against that defendant, and proceed with the action against the other defendants; or

(b)  set down the action for judgment against the defendant at the time when the action is set down for trial, or is set down for judgment, against the other defendants.

(3)  An application under paragraph (1) must be by summons.

9.As noted in Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2026 (“HKCP”) at 19/7/2, by the combined effect of O.13, r. 6 and O.19, r. 7, the latter applies to cases in which the defendant is in default of notice of intention to defend as well as of defence.

10.Although worded in mandatory terms, O.19, r. 7(1) is not mandatory but discretionary and the Court retains its discretionary power whether to give judgment[6]. The Court is required to scrutinise whether the matters pleaded in this SOC and give judgment based on the pleadings alone rather than on evidence: see HKCP at §19/7/14; Minebea Cambodia Co Ltd v Zhao Jin Fang [2022] HKCFI 3325 at §28 and the cases therein cited.

11.Where service has been effected and the defendant has not filed a defence, the Court proceeds on the basis that the facts pleaded in the SOC have been impliedly admitted: Geng Wen v Zhong Ying [2024] HKCFI 3513 at §12.

12.While it is not the normal practice for the Court to grant a declaration without going to trial, that is a rule of practice rather than a rule of law. Its paramount duty is to do the fullest justice to the plaintiff to which he is entitled[7]. In cases involving email fraud, declaratory relief has often been granted on the basis that there is a genuine need for such relief to secure the plaintiff’s proprietary as opposed to merely personal claim, particularly given that the defendant may have other creditors: Minebea at §29.

Disposition

13.Ms Kelly Cheng, counsel for P, submits that the pleaded facts show that P was a victim of the fraud practised on her resulting in her loss of D1’s Misappropriated Asset which was transferred to D1’s Wallet without her knowledge, consent or authority.

14.I am satisfied on the facts pleaded in the SOC that P was a victim of the fraud and has suffered loss and damage.

15.Whilst P’s pleaded case supports causes of action against D1 such as unlawful means conspiracy[8] (in respect of which the Defendants would be jointly and severally liable to P in damages), constructive trust, unjust enrichment, dishonest assistance and/or knowing receipt, at the hearing, the relief P now seeks is for a declaration that D1 holds D1’s Misappropriated Asset on trust for P and an order that D1 to transfer D1’s Misappropriated Asset to P.

16.P submits that this is an appropriate case for the Court to grant declaratory relief. P’s 2^nd affirmation filed on 24 July 2026 shows that Tether cannot take any action without confirmation from the verified law enforcement handling the case, namely, HKPF from whom a formal indication of ‘no objection’ must be obtained before Tether can proceed with any potential USDT reissuance.

17.HKPF confirmed on 17 July 2026 that they are willing to assist P in liaising with Tether for the purpose of recovering the transfer but require a judgment from the Court.

18.P submits that without a declaration, there is a risk that other creditors of D1 may lay their hands on D1’s Misappropriated Asset. In those circumstances, P would have to share D1’s Misappropriated Asset as an unsecured creditor with the other creditors which, on the pleaded facts, would be unfair to P.

19.I agree that this is an appropriate case to grant declaratory relief which coupled with the order that D1 transfers D1’s Misappropriated Asset to P will assist P in her proprietary claim to D1’s Misappropriated Asset.

20.P also seeks summary assessment of the costs of the action including the costs of this application and lodged its statement of costs with the Court.

21.As D1 is absent, I direct that (i) the statement of costs be served on D1 by URL link; and (ii) D1 do lodge his list of objections (if any) within 14 days. Summary assessment of the statement of costs will be conducted in Chambers thereafter.

Ms Kelly Cheng, instructed by Messrs. Leung & Lau, Solicitors LLP, for the Plaintiff

The 1^st Defendant was not represented and did not appear