Gotti & Gevorgyan (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 771 (26 September 2025)

1. The applicant wife undertakes to provide a copy of the instructions she provides to her expert to the respondent husband within 10 days of the expert being engaged.
2. The parties are reminded they are under an ongoing obligation of disclosure.

1. The parties are reminded they are under an obligation to produce documents that are in their possession or control in accordance with any notice to produce that has been served upon them.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonyms Gotti & Gevorgyan has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. By way of Application in a Proceeding filed on 17 September 2025, the applicant wife, Ms Gotti, has sought permission to rely on a single expert witness appointed for the purpose of preparing an adversarial report.
2. Rule 7.11 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules") empowers a court to grant permission for a party to rely upon an expert report in circumstances where they file an appropriate application. The Court may take into account: the purpose of the expert evidence rules (as per r 7.02 of the Rules); costs implications; whether the expert will expedite or delay the proceedings; the complexity of the issues; the suitability of a single joint expert against a party-appointed expert; and the relevance and appropriateness of the expert's specialised knowledge.

1. The applicant wife relies upon the following material:
   • Affidavit of Ms Gotti filed on 17 September 2025.
   • Application in a Proceeding filed by the applicant on 17 September 2025.
2. The respondent husband relies upon the following material:
   • Affidavit of Mr Gevorgyan filed on 25 September 2025.

1. In this matter, I accept that ordinarily, the Court would approach the matter from the point of view of appointing a single expert. In this case, the expert is required to provide advice to the Court regarding the acquisition, exchange, transfer and disposition of cryptocurrency by, or on behalf of, the parties jointly and/or individually. While I accept the Court would ordinarily strive to appoint a single expert, in the context of the history of this litigation, which has involved a multiplicity of appearances, in excess of 120 subpoenas issued, and in circumstances where the parties are now self-represented, I am satisfied that the likelihood of the parties being able to agree on matters that would facilitate the appointment of a single expert is an improbability.
2. In her affidavit, Ms Gotti contends that the expert is necessary to value and to track the cryptocurrency acquisitions due to the following reasons.
3. Ms Gotti asserts that the nature of the cryptocurrency transactions, often involving multiple wallets, exchanges and platforms, make it difficult to trace the acquisitions and the dispositions without specialised knowledge. She further contends that, unlike traditional financial assets, cryptocurrencies can be moved and stored in ways that are not easily visible or accessible through standard financial disclosures.
4. She further contends that she believes that only a qualified expert can accurately identify, value and verify the existence and movement of cryptocurrency holdings, particularly if there is an intent to conceal or obscure them. In that context, I have not made any determination as to whether they have been concealed or obscured, but would note, at this stage, that this is a live issue requiring determination in the proceedings.
5. Ms Gotti further raises concerns that the husband, Mr Gevorgyan, may not have fully disclosed his cryptocurrency assets, and that an expert would be able to uncover any omissions or inconsistencies. Again, I am specifically not making any finding that there has been such non-disclosure but note that it is also a live issue to be considered at the final hearing.
6. Additionally, given the volatility and diversity of cryptocurrencies, the wife argues that an expert is needed to provide a reliable valuation at relevant points in time. The relevant point in time that the wife is seeking the expert's advice is from 1 January 2018, being the time that the parties commenced acquiring and selling cryptocurrency. Relevantly, that period will include the period after 1 September 2020, being the month in which the parties sold their former matrimonial home. This is relevant in circumstances where the wife contends that the husband has applied a significant portion, of the net proceeds of sale, for his own purposes.
7. In her affidavit, Ms Gotti outlines attempts she has made to obtain the agreement of Mr Gevorgyan, in respect to the appointment of a single expert. It is fair to say that in that correspondence, Mr Gevorgyan has favoured the appointment of a single expert. However, there is clearly a dispute in respect to the identity of that single expert, the fee that would be rendered by the single expert, and who would pay the fee. Furthermore, there is a substantial dispute in respect to the provision of information to the expert.
8. As I have indicated, given the manner in which the litigation has been conducted by the parties, there is, in my view, remote prospects of the parties being able to reach agreement to enable the appointment of a single expert. I am satisfied that such a course would likely give rise to further litigation regarding matters such as the expert's identity, the experts cost, the nature of questions asked of the expert, and the information and documentation provided to the expert.
9. I accept, however, that neither party should be disadvantaged, and each party should be in a position to rely upon a report of their own single expert. Appropriately, Ms Gotti has verbally amended her application to seek such an order.

1. Ms Gotti's concerns, and again, these are subject to consideration at final hearing, are as follows.
2. In her affidavit, Ms Gotti contends that in September 2020, the former matrimonial home at JJ Street, suburb KK, was sold for $2,525,000. She states that although the property was in her sole name, the net proceeds of over $943,000 were transferred to the husband's NAB account. Ms Gotti states that after the sale, she had a discussion with the husband about how to invest the funds. She contends that Mr Gevorgyan wanted to invest more money in cryptocurrency, but she was concerned that too much had already been invested.
3. Ms Gotti further contends that in January 2021 she discovered that Mr Gevorgyan had withdrawn approximately $1,380,000 from their bank accounts over a few weeks without her knowledge or consent. Ms Gotti contends that she repeatedly asked Mr Gevorgyan to account for the withdrawn funds, including where they were held and their investment value, but she did not receive a satisfactory response.
4. Ms Gotti is also concerned that the withdrawn funds, which include proceeds of sale from the former matrimonial home, were used by Mr Gevorgyan to invest in cryptocurrency and initial coin offerings. Ms Gotti contends that she has not been provided with access to the relevant cryptocurrency wallets or exchange accounts, nor has she been provided with adequate transaction records. She contends that despite a request, Mr Gevorgyan has not provided full details or transaction histories for the cryptocurrency assets. Ms Gotti states she is therefore unable to determine the current value or location of the asset purchased with the sale proceeds, or whether they remain part of the matrimonial asset pool. This, she contends, prejudices her ability to properly present her case at final hearing.
5. In noting those concerns by Ms Gotti, I indicate, again, that I have not made a determination as to whether those concerns have substance, but clearly they are live issues to be considered at the final hearing. In summary, Ms Gotti is concerned about what she contends is lack of transparency, unilateral action by the husband, and the possibility that significant proceeds from the sale of the family home have been diverted into cryptocurrency investments, making it difficult to trace and value those assets for the purpose of the property proceedings, without the assistance of an expert.
6. In terms of the attempts she has made to reach agreement and the attitude of Mr Gevorgyan to the appointment of a single expert, there is reference to exhibited material in Ms Gotti's affidavit, labelled G8, G9, G10, G11, which records the parties' respective positions.

1. Comparatively, Mr Gevorgyan, in his affidavit dated 25 September 2025, challenges the necessity of appointing a cryptocurrency expert, arguing that Ms Gotti is more knowledgeable about cryptocurrency than she claims, having co-founded and operated a crypto-training company with him. Ms Gotti initially stated the expert was for personal understanding, not for court evidence. While he does not object to Ms Gotti obtaining private advice, Mr Gevorgyan opposes the use of that advice as expert evidence unless jointly instructed. He expressed concern that Ms Gotti has not disclosed: the instructions given to the proposed expert, Mr SS; the basis of the $12,000 quote; whether the expert has already received documents; and whether Mr SS has had discussions with her. Mr Gevorgyan argues that this lack of transparency undermines the procedural fairness and risks introducing biased evidence into the proceedings.
2. Mr Gevorgyan disputes that he has provided inadequate disclosure or non-disclosure. He refers to his efforts, which include providing over 30 disclosure bundles containing over 2700 documents. Mr Gevorgyan contends he has also provided wallet addresses, transaction logs and ledgers dating back to 2017. Mr Gevorgyan, in his affidavit, accuses Ms Gevorgyan of repeatedly requesting documents already disclosed, issuing excessive subpoenas and notices to admit, and delaying the proceedings through adjournments and late applications. Mr Gevorgyan outlines his concern of the impact of the litigation on his health. Mr Gevorgyan contends that this ongoing litigation, and the applications made by Ms Gotti, has caused him significant stress and has hindered his ability to prepare for trial.
3. Mr Gevorgyan disputes Ms Gotti's interpretation of various cryptocurrency transactions, particularly bulk transfers using apps like '[LL] app' and also her allegations of missing or unaccounted-for assets. He maintains that many transactions Ms Gotti refers to have nothing to do with him or relevant entities owned or controlled by him.
4. Mr Gevorgyan further contends that Ms Gotti misrepresents data and ignores explanations already provided. He argues that Ms Gotti has misrepresented: the purpose of needing an expert appointment; the nature of the various crypto-currency transactions; and the extent of her own knowledge.
5. While Ms Gotti alleges that a large sum, that is, USDC$2.6 million (approximately AUD$3.4 million) was transferred to wallets linked to Mr Gevorgyan, he explains that these were bulk transfers using apps like '[LL] app' or '[MM App]', where only a small portion was received by the relevant entity, such as J Pty Ltd, and the rest went to unrelated parties. He likens this to payroll or dividend batch payments where the recipient has no knowledge or control over other recipients.
6. Specifically, Mr Gevorgyan disputes Ms Gotti's claims regarding the following transactions in paragraph 6.1 and 6.3 of Ms Gotti's affidavit filed 22 September 2025, USDC $2,483,635 (approximately AUD$3.2 million), which he contends is not related to J Pty Ltd, and he further disputes in respect to paragraph 6.4 that the amount of USDC$1,056,659 (approximately AUD$1.36 million) is not related to J Pty Ltd. Mr Gevorgyan further contends that the amounts referred to in paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of Ms Gotti's 22 September 2025 affidavit, being USDC$742,031 (approximately AUD$950,000) and USDC$2,146,027 (approximately AUD$2.7 million) respectively, are not related to J Pty Ltd. In respect to paragraphs 6.11 to 6.21 of Ms Gotti's 22 September 2025 affidavit, Mr Gevorgyan contends that various cryptocurrency tokens including NN coin, OO coin, PP coin are not related to either J Pty Ltd or himself. Further, Mr Gevorgyan asserts that he has already disclosed over 30 bundles of documents, as I have said, including in word format, wallet addresses, transaction logs and ledgers.
7. Mr Gevorgyan claims that Ms Gotti can verify those transactions herself using public blockchain explorers. He estimates his personal cryptocurrency holdings are minimal, being approximately $500. He disputes Ms Gotti's claim that he deposited 61 QQ coin into RR platform, stating it was closer to 61.05 QQ coin in total, and most of it was traded or liquidated years ago.
8. In summary, the issues in dispute between the parties are of such complexity that I am satisfied that the Court would be assisted by expert evidence on these matters. I am secondly satisfied that, regrettably, there are, at best, remote prospects of the parties agreeing to the appointment of a single expert, including in respect to those matters that would be fundamental to the preparation of the report. This includes the identity of the expert, the instructions provided to the expert, the documentation provided to the expert, and the preparedness of the parties to comply with requests made by the expert for additional information.

1. In summary, while less than optimal, I am satisfied that to provide such assistance as will be required by the Court, and to ensure that each party has an adequate opportunity to properly present their respective cases, it is appropriate for me to make an order pursuant to r 7.11 of the Rules, permitting the parties to each rely upon an appropriately qualified person to value cryptocurrency exchanges and ancillary information.

I certify that the preceding twenty-eight (28) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Deputy Chief Justice McClelland delivered on 26 September 2025.