{"id":400509,"date":"2026-11-04T14:30:50","date_gmt":"2026-11-04T09:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=400509"},"modified":"2026-11-04T14:25:42","modified_gmt":"2026-11-04T08:55:42","slug":"icc-india-arbitration-conference-2026-tracing-freezing-recovering-digital-assets","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/04\/icc-india-arbitration-conference-2026-tracing-freezing-recovering-digital-assets\/","title":{"rendered":"How can digital assets be traced, frozen and recovered?: Experts discuss key challenges & legal remedies at the ICC India Arbitration Conference 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The ICC India Arbitration Conference 2026<\/a>, held on 31 October 2026, at the Trident Hotel, Nariman Point, Mumbai, brought together members of the arbitration community to discuss contemporary developments and challenges in international arbitration. The conference featured discussions on monetary remedies, asset recovery in the digital era and ethical standards in international arbitration.<\/p>\n

In a panel discussion at the conference titled, “The Road Less Travelled: Asset Recovery in Arbitration Amid the Age of Digital Assets”<\/span>, the panellists examined the evolving challenges of tracing, preserving and recovering digital assets in arbitration proceedings. The discussion focused on the identification of cryptocurrency holders, forensic investigation, freezing injunctions, emergency arbitration, jurisdictional challenges, loss of private keys, parallel proceedings, and more.<\/p>\n

Moderated by Ms. Karishma Vora<\/span>, Barrister, 39 Essex Chambers, the panel consisted of esteemed legal professionals namely, Mr. Vinay Garodia<\/span>, Partner, EY Forensic & Integrity Services; Ms. Juhi Mathur<\/span>, Partner, Trilegal; Mr. Manavendra Mishra<\/span>, Partner, Khaitan & Co; and Mr. Aniz Ahmad Amirudin<\/span>, Partner, Cecil Abraham & Partners.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

What are digital assets?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Responding to Ms. Karishma Vora’s question<\/span>, Mr. Vinay Garodia<\/span> said that he had previously described it as something held digitally or in a binary format, with value that can be redeemed or owned. While the technical definition remains the same, he underscored a change in common or legal parlance: digital assets increasingly mean cryptocurrency, NFTs, or tokens held in a binary format in a wallet that hold value. In India, such assets are ‘virtual digital assets’, which include cryptocurrency, NFTs, tokens, etc., but exclude currency notes or e-rupee or e-currency.<\/p>\n

On the role of wallets, Ms. Juhi Mathur<\/span> explained that the digital wallet is the holder of an asset, which also acts like a gateway to an asset as it allows access to it upon receipt of credentials. It typically holds the cryptographic keys through which users can transact the asset. Thus, she stated that while conducting asset recovery, investigators examine balances in wallets, which are available on online platforms.<\/p>\n

Identifying the culprit in digital asset fraud<\/p>\n

Reflecting on her first digital asset fraud case, Ms. Vora underscored that one of the greatest difficulties in tracing digital assets is that the victim does not know who they have been defrauded by.<\/p>\n

Agreeing with Ms. Vora, Mr.<\/span> Aniz Ahmad Amirudin<\/span> added that identifying the movement of the assets does not necessarily identify the person responsible for the fraud. In this regard, he delved into the process of a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO):<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Identify the exchange:<\/span> The victim shall engage a digital forensic expert to trace the stolen cryptocurrency and identify the wallet addresses to which the assets have been transferred. This forensic investigation might establish that the cryptocurrency has entered an account maintained by a Centralised Cryptocurrency Exchange (Exchange) such as Binance or Coinbase.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Apply for an NPO:<\/span> The victim shall file an application before the Court for an order compelling the Exchange to disclose information concerning the account holder.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Obtain identifying information:<\/span> The Exchange might be required to disclose the account holder’s name, identification documents, KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) verification records, residential addresses, email addresses, IP addresses, linked bank accounts and payment details, transaction history, etc.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Identify the wrongdoer:<\/span> The information obtained might enable the victim to identify the person responsible, commence substantive proceedings, and seek appropriate freezing or proprietary relief.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    He remarked that in Malaysia, parties had been successful in obtaining an NPO which enabled them to identify the wrongdoers.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    Ms. Vora added that the NPO process was similar to the English process wherein parties can approach the Court to direct an internet service provider or Exchange to disclose information.<\/p>\n

    From the Indian perspective, Ms. Mathur stated that such remedy was available for safeguarding personality rights, wherein Indian Courts could be approached for issuing John Doe orders against impersonation or infringement of personality rights. In such cases, parties could include the intermediary like Facebook, Google, etc., as a pro forma party to provide information about the unknown culprit. She stressed that such rationale could be applied to digital asset disputes for identification of the anonymous wallet holder.<\/p>\n

    Evidence gathering and the challenges of asset tracing<\/p>\n

    Mr. Manavendra Mishra<\/span> highlighted the practical difficulties involved in gathering evidence, particularly when digital assets move rapidly across jurisdictions. He observed that even in cases where the parties know the location of an asset and the person holding it, there is no legal means to establish the transaction. He pointed out that obtaining information from internet service providers and telecom operators in India can take approximately 21 days, during which the assets might move across multiple jurisdictions.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    He further discussed how parties have increasingly explored obtaining freezing orders in jurisdictions such as Singapore and Dubai before pursuing enforcement measures in India. This could aid the process of pursuing action against the culprit in India. Thus, selecting the appropriate jurisdiction can be more important than determining the precise location of the asset at a particular point in time.<\/p>\n

    Regarding the process of asset tracing, Mr. Garodia explained that the basic methodology of asset tracing remains similar for physical and digital assets, although the latter involves distinct challenges. He identified three important considerations:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      Timing:<\/span> Asset tracing should begin early, preferably before formal proceedings or disclosure orders, as digital assets can move rapidly between wallets and jurisdictions.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Confidentiality:<\/span> Forensic investigations should be conducted discreetly so that the other party does not become aware of the information being gathered.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      Digital footprints:<\/span> Unlike physical assets, digital assets may not generate conventional documentary records. Their traces may instead be found in electronic records, wallet numbers, passkeys, screenshots of transactions, account statements, and beneficiary details.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      Mr. Garodia also highlighted the importance of gathering discrete information from people within the individual’s immediate surroundings, including employees, assistants, drivers, receptionists, and family members, who might have knowledge of the existence or approximate value of digital assets. Illustrating the role of forensic investigation, he referred to a case in which a review of thousands of pages of bank statements revealed a small redemption entry linked to a cryptocurrency wallet. The entry helped establish that the counterparty held an undisclosed wallet and enabled investigators to trace the original wallet containing the assets.<\/p>\n

      Freezing injunctions and preservation of digital assets<\/p>\n

      Turning to the importance of securing assets before they are transferred or dissipated, Mr. Amirudin explained that a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) restrains a defendant from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of assets worldwide up to a specified amount, pending the determination of substantive proceedings.<\/p>\n

      “There’s little point in spending considerable time and resources tracing stolen cryptocurrency if the fraudster can simply transfer the assets to another wallet before we can obtain an injunctive relief.”<\/p>\n

      He also distinguished between the two forms of relief:<\/p>\n