Cryptocurrency trader's contempt appeal leads to reduced sentence

Introduction

The Court of Appeal recently addressed an appeal by Mr Graham Darby, a cryptocurrency trader, against his committal to prison for contempt of court. Mr Darby was initially sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for failing to disclose assets of 100 Bitcoin, valued at approximately $10 million at the time of the appeal.

Background

The case arose from a dispute between Mr Darby and Mr Zi Wang, an Australian cryptocurrency trader, over a transaction involving Tezos and Bitcoin. Mr Wang alleged that Mr Darby failed to return Tezos as agreed, leading to legal proceedings and a freezing order against Mr Darby in August 2021.

Contempt Proceedings

Mr Darby was found in contempt for not disclosing 100 Bitcoin as required by the freezing order. Despite initial denials and claims of memory issues, expert evidence suggested the Bitcoin belonged to Mr Darby. The contempt proceedings culminated in a prison sentence, which Mr Darby appealed.

Grounds of Appeal

The appeal focused on procedural fairness, particularly the lack of legal representation for Mr Darby during the sanctions hearing. Mr Darby, who had suffered a breakdown post-committal, eventually secured legal aid and representation to challenge the length and immediacy of his sentence.

Developments and Settlement

Shortly before the appeal hearing, a psychiatric report was submitted, and Mr Darby apologised for his contempt. The parties later reached a settlement, agreeing not to oppose a reduction of the sentence to six months, which influenced the court's decision.

Court's Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reducing Mr Darby's sentence to time served, equivalent to 292 days. The court highlighted the importance of legal representation in ensuring fairness, especially in contempt proceedings.

Implications

This case underscores the significance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings, particularly for individuals facing serious sanctions. The decision also reflects the court's willingness to consider mental health and compliance efforts in contempt cases.

Conclusion

The appeal's outcome illustrates the judiciary's approach to balancing punitive measures with considerations of fairness and mental health, providing a precedent for future contempt cases involving complex financial transactions.

Learn More

For more information on shareholder law, see BeCivil's guide to Shareholder Law.

Copyright & permissions