Siegers v Nest Services Ltd & Ors

(a) any documents, notes, records, emails or other electronic communication associated with the transactions for relevant periods (which occurred between 11 March 2023 and 2 May 2023) evidencing the transfer of cryptocurrency assets to and from certain specified exchange wallets;

(b) any documents and/or records showing the identity and/or addresses of any persons and/or entities associated with the transactions in the relevant periods to the specified exchange wallets;

(c) any documents and/or records showing the current balance of any accounts associated with the transactions in the relevant periods and any other accounts held by the same persons and/or entities; and;

(d) statements for any accounts associated with the transactions in the relevant periods to the present date.

1. As can be seen, the categories of documents in subparagraph (b) are expressly directed to ascertaining the identity of the persons who held the exchange wallets concerned. Upon first reading I was of the view that the categories of documents in subparagraphs (a), (c) and (d) travel beyond those relevant to ascertaining that identity, although statements of account in subparagraph (d) will, it may be inferred, include the identity of the account holder.
2. Counsel for the applicant has submitted and I accept that all documents in the categories described will tend to identify the persons against whom Mr Siegers has causes of action. This is because, for example, if the balance in an exchange wallet dropped to zero after having previously received the stolen cryptoassets, this would indicate that the assets had been transferred to some other entity, possibly related to the fraudsters. Under those circumstances, the documentary trail is likely to identify the next recipient of those assets and thus identify a person against whom Mr Sigers may commence action. Alternatively, the holder of those next wallet may simply be a person involved in a breach of fiduciary obligation.
3. I will deal below with whether Rule 32.03 permits an order for the discovery of such a broader set of documents.
4. I set out below each of the eight respondents. For the purposes of Mr Sieger's substituted service application, it is important to note that the majority of the respondents are based outside of Australia.

(a) The first respondent (Nest Services Limited) is a Seychelles company that manages the operations for the Binance digital currency exchange.[1]

(b) The second respondent (Investbybit Pty Ltd) is an Australian company and registered digital currency exchange for Binance in Australia.

(c) The third respondent (Bitstamp Europe S.A.) is a Luxembourg company that operates the Bitstamp digital currency exchange.

(d) The fourth respondent (Galaxy Digital Holdings Ltd) is a Canadian company based in New York that operates the Galaxy digital currency exchange.

(e) The fifth respondent (Hitechno Business Ltd) is a Saint Vincent and the Grenadines company based in Hong Kong in that operates the HitBTC digital currency exchange.

(f) The sixth respondent (Peken Global Ltd) is a Seychelles company that operates the KuCoin digital currency exchange.

(g) The seventh respondent (Nex Holdings Ltd) is a Costa Rica based company that operates the N.Exchange digital currency exchange.

(h) The eight respondent (VALR (Pty) Ltd) is a South African company that operates the VALR digital currency exchange.

1. Mr Siegers filed the following in support of his application:

(a) Affidavit of Mr Eric Johannes Siegers dated affirmed 27 November 2025;

(b) Affidavit of Mr Tam McLaughlin affirmed 27 November 2025;

(c) Affidavit of Mr Bhargav Ram Mohan affirmed 19 January 2026; and

(d) Affidavit of Mr Bhargav Ram Mohan affirmed 21 January 2026.

1. A letter dated 22 January 2026 from the second respondent's legal department was placed before the court.

1. Rule 6.10 of the Rules relevantly provides as follows:

6.10 Substituted service > > (1) Where for any reason it is impracticable to serve a document in the manner required by these Rules, the Court may order that, instead of service, such steps be taken as the Court specifies for the purpose of bringing the document to the notice of the person to be served. > > (2) Where the Court makes an order under paragraph (1), the Court may order that the document be taken to have been served - > > (a) on the happening of any specified event; or > > (b) on the expiry of any specified time. > > (3) The Court may make an order under paragraph (1) notwithstanding that the person to be served is out of Victoria or was out of Victoria when the proceeding commenced.

2. Mr Siegers submits that service as ordinarily required by the Rules would not be practical as most cryptocurrency exchanges conduct their business online, and that physical service would be unlikely to bring the proceeding to their attention in a timely manner.
3. Communications between Mr Sieger's solicitors and seven of the eight respondents have been conducted via email. The fourth respondent (Galaxy Digital Holdings) has not responded to communications from Mr Sieger's solicitors at all.
4. On this basis, Mr Siegers seeks a substituted service order permitting him to serve all documents by email on the respondents, with the exception of the fourth respondent (Galaxy Digital Holdings).
5. The principles applicable to an application under Rule 6.10 were helpfully set out by Connock J in Sanc (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dixon [2020] VSC 872.

[18] As the terms of the Rules make clear, the purpose of any permitted method of substituted service is to bring the relevant documents to the notice of the person to be served.

[19] As Garde J observed in Austin v Dobbs ..., r 6.10 '... has a long history, and there are many past decisions ...'. Observations that have been made regarding the operation of r 6.10 and similar rules include the following:

(a) The primary object of substituted service is to bring to the knowledge of the person in respect of whom substituted service is sought the whole proceeding, so that the person can take such steps as they think proper to protect their interests and rights. It is not proper to substitute service of process in a court of law where there is no belief that the service will bring the proceedings to the knowledge of the person in question or of any person representing their interests.

(b) The 'operative condition' in the opening words of the rule is that it be 'impracticable to serve a document in the manner required by [the] Rules'. The expression 'for any reason' has been said to be broad and to be given a wide meaning. What is required is that, for any reason, it is impracticable to serve the document in the manner required by the Rules. Where the court finds that this condition is satisfied and it is proper to do so in the exercise of the court's discretion, an order for substituted service may be made, including with respect to a person who is outside Australia. As Bell J has observed, Order 7 does not derogate from the breadth and operation of r 6.10.

(c) The mere fact that a person is outside Australia is not sufficient in and of itself to establish that it is impracticable, and it is not permissible to use substituted service only for the purpose of side stepping the obstacles to personal service abroad. By parity of reasoning it may be added that, unless the requirements of r 6.10 are satisfied and it is a proper exercise of the court's discretion to order substituted service, it is similarly not permissible to use substituted service for the purpose only of sidestepping other obstacles to serving documents in accordance with the Rules.

(d) It does not inexorably or necessarily follow that because a document cannot be served promptly that this will mean that service in accordance with the Rules is impracticable. It will always depend on the facts, and in every case it is necessary to consider the requirements of the rule by reference to the individual circumstances in question.

(e) As was the case in Howse v Campbell ..., substituted service has been ordered in cases where a defendant could not be served and there were just grounds to believe that the defendant was withdrawing from service.

(f) As Garde J observed in Austin, r 6.10 is also to be read and applied in the context of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) (CP Act), including the overarching purpose of facilitating the just, efficient, timely and cost effective resolution of the real issues in dispute.

(g) Once r 6.10 is engaged, the principal matter for the court to consider, having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of each case, is whether steps can be taken for the purpose of bringing the document to the notice of the person to be served. If no such steps can be identified where little is known about the actual whereabouts or domestic connections of a person then that may be a discretionary reason for refusing an order for substituted service. However, where the steps proposed are very likely to bring the court documents to the attention of the person in question, then an order may be made.

1. In Strauss v Macdonald [2023] VSC 226 Connock J also said:

[33] A review of a number of the authorities also reveals some differences of language used by judges when considering the exercise of discretion in the context of the object of the proposed method of service being bringing the relevant proceeding or documents to the attention of the person to be served. For example, in Foxe v Brown, Mason J sitting as a single judge in the High Court referred to the need to establish that the proposed service method was 'likely' to bring the writ to the attention of the defendant. The same approach was taken by Wilson J in Permanent Custodians Limited v Massey. Justice Bell in Carter Holt Harvey referred to the proposed service methods as being 'very likely' to bring the relevant court documents to the attention of the defendant. Justice Garde in Austin was satisfied that the proposed service steps 'will' be effective in bringing the proceeding to the attention of the defendant. Judicial Registrar Clayton in Hassan v Noa endorsed the view expressed by the Court of Appeal in Porter v Freudenberg that the methods of service must 'in all reasonable probability, if not certainty, be effective in bringing knowledge of the writ to the defendant'. After referring to this case, Sloss J in Chen v Blockchain Global Limited & Anor made substituted service orders, observing that she was satisfied that the proposed steps taken together 'would be likely' to bring the originating process to the attention of the relevant defendant.

[34] ... It is also to be remembered that each case is dependent upon its own facts and that the choice of language adopted by different judges is in some instances impacted by the peculiar circumstances of the case in question. That said, in my view it is open to this court to make a substituted service order under r 6.10 of the Rules where it is established that the proposed service method would be likely to bring the relevant documents to the attention of the person to be served.

[35] I refer also to the recent observations of Elliott J in Foris GFS Australia Pty Ltd v Manivel (Foris GFS), including:

(a) his Honour's observations regarding the need for appropriate caution, depending on the facts of the case, where substituted service is sought to be effected by the use of a link in an email; and

(b) his Honour's observations about considering whether it is necessary or desirable in the circumstances of a given case to provide to the email recipient a means for independently verifying that the email sent to effect substituted service is authentic.

1. The evidence put before me satisfies me that the respondents each operate their business almost entirely online. The choice of domicile of the corporation concerned is likely to be a matter of convenience to the corporation concerned. I am unable to speculate as to those reasons.
2. I do note that all but one of the respondents have structured their affairs so as to engage with the applicant's solicitors via some electronic communications, whether by email (predominantly) and in one instance by a Zendesk-type ticketing arrangement.
3. They have all (except Galaxy) indicated that upon service of a court order or request from law enforcement they would provide the relevant information.
4. The first and second respondents by letters dated 20 and 22 January 2026 have indicated some more limited categories of documents they would be prepared to provide upon an order of the court issuing. While the Court appreciates that this is their position, the Court is not bound to limit its orders to the categories that they have proposed. The Court is bound to determine the matter before it. The applicant has sought certain categories of documents. The Court will determine for itself the scopy of the categories it will order.
5. To require the applicant to work out how to serve, and then take steps to do so, in respect of companies domiciled in Seychelles (or now Abu Dhabi), Luxembourg, New York, Hong Kong, Turks and Caicos Islands, Costa Rica and South Africa, under circumstances where those parties have been in email communications with the applicant's solicitors would not further the overarching purposes of the CP Act. Rather, it would slow down the progress of the plaintiff in attempting to commence a proceeding against those responsible for his loss and damage. It would be costly and inefficient.
6. I also note that all of the respondents have in fact been provided by electronic means with the Originating Motion, Summons and supporting affidavits already. Email responses were received to the letter providing those documents from the following respondents:

(a) the first respondent provided an email response that indicated that it had received and considered the letter.

I note that the documents were provided to the first respondent at an email address legal@binance.com. An initial automated email response was received which included the following:

Please note that this email address (legal@binance.com) is in restricted use.

Please note the matters listed below should be processed through the following channels:

...

Disclosure of account information or account restrictions (including but not limited to any subpoena, court order, order, trustee, administrator and/or liquidator request for disclosure of Binance user account information or user information or freezing of assets): https://www.binance.com/en/chat. If you are not a Binance user, please proceed to use the to use the same link as a " "Visitor". Visitor".

Any above matter that is sent to this email address instead of the correct channel will NOT receive a response.

For the avoidance of doubt, Binance does NOT accept service of legal process or any documents issued in relation to legal proceedings (including any court order) by email. The sending of any such legal document to this email address (legal@binance.com) will not constitute valid legal service. Binance reserves its rights to challenge any attempt to use this legal@binance.com email address for service of legal documents.

Notwithstanding the above, a subsequent email response was received which commenced:

We refer to your letter dated 12 December 2025 and the attached draft Preliminary Discovery Order ("Draft Order") that is scheduled to be heard by the Commercial Division Duty Judge in the County Court of Victoria on 23 January 2026.

Please be informed that Nest Services Limited, now renamed Nest Exchange Limited ("NEL") is no longer registered in the Seychelles as of 5 January 2026 and has since moved to ADGM. You may refer to our updated terms (https://www.binance.com/en/terms) and Licenses page (https://www.binance.com/en/about-legal/licenses) for more information on NEL.

As noted above, a further letter was put into evidence dated 22 January 2026 which dealt in detail with the court process and was intended to be put before the Court.

From this I can readily conclude that have already come to the attention of the first respondent.

(b) the second respondent initially provided an automated email response which included the same material as was in the automated response from the first respondent. This is not surprising as they are both in the Binance stable of companies. I also note that the documents were provided to the second respondent via an email address legal@binance.com.

It provided a further letter of response to the originating documents on 20 January 2026 indicating that it would provide certain documents upon service of an order of the Court.

For the same reasons as with the first respondent and by reason of the letter dated 20 January 2026, I can and do conclude that the documents have already come to the attention of the second respondent.

(c) The third respondent provided 2 email responses to the applicant's solicitors after the originating documents were served on it.

From this I can and do conclude that the documents have already come to the third respondent's attention.

(d) In response to emails to various email addresses for the fourth respondent (Galaxy), undeliverable bounce back emails were received.

Based on this I cannot be satisfied that the originating documents have come to the attention of anyone at the fourth respondent. Neither could I be satisfied that if I ordered the documents to be served by email at any address provided in the evidence, the documents would come to the attention of the fourth respondent.

(e) The fifth respondent responded with an automated email advising that the "request" had been received and would be "reviewed by our team". Taking the information in this email on face value, I can conclude that the originating documents have come to the attention of the fifth respondent.

(f) The sixth respondent responded with an email containing some boilerplate paragraph indicating that it cannot freeze assets of any user and that it will cooperate with authorities. It included the following:

Therefore, if you need any assistance, please inform your local police or any other law you need any assistance, please inform your local police or any law enforcement institutions to send a duly signed/sealed official notice/ official freezing order via the KuCoin Information Request System, accessible at https://www.kucoin.com/legal/requests. KuCoin will directly assist them to cooperate to in the case.

The nature of the responsive email leads me to infer some person or process deployed by the sixth respondent has identified the nature of the originating documents, albeit incorrectly making reference to freezing assets. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the originating documents have sufficiently come to the attention of the sixth respondent.

(g) The seventh respondent responded by email that does not appear on its face to be an automated response. It included the following:

Please note that due to strict data privacy regulations and internal security policies, we cannot we cannot disclose any private user information, transaction details, or account data to third parties.

I also note that by email exchange on 21 May 2025 the seventh respondent instructed the applicant's solicitors:

For any legal related inquiries, please contact our Legal Department directly at: legal@n.exchange

That is the email address that the originating documents were sent to.

It seems to me that a natural person has received and at least considered the originating documents.

(h) The eighth respondent responded advising that it would not oppose the orders sought provided it was not required to physically attend any court hearing and that the scope of discovery to be ordered was limited as sought in the originating motion.

Under those circumstances it appears to me that the eighth respondent has received the documents and that I can and should make an order in those terms in respect of the eighth respondent.

1. Having regard to those matters, I consider that it would be impracticable to require the plaintiff to serve the originating documents in this proceeding on the respondents in the manner required by the rules and that it is very likely that the originating documents have already come to the attention of the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth respondents.
2. Under those circumstances I will order make an order for substituted service of the originating documents on those respondents.
3. I will also make an ancillary order under Rule 6.11 deeming the provision of those documents by email to them as has already taken place to be good and sufficient service of those documents.

1. Rule 32.03 of the Rules relevantly provides as follows:

(1) The Court may make an order under paragraph (2) where -

(a) an applicant, having made reasonable inquiries, is unable to ascertain the description of a person sufficiently for the purpose of commencing a proceeding in the Court against that person (in this Rule called the person concerned); and

(b) it appears that some person has or is likely to have knowledge of facts, or has or is likely to have or has had or is likely to have had in that person's possession any document or thing, tending to assist in such ascertainment.

(2) The Court may order that the person, and in the case of a corporation, the corporation by an appropriate officer, shall -

(a) attend before the Court to be orally examined in relation to the description of the person concerned;

(b) make discovery to the applicant of all documents which are or have been in the person or corporation's possession relating to the description of the person concerned.

(3) Where the Court makes an order under paragraph (2)(a), it may -

(a) order that the person or corporation against whom or which the order is made shall produce to the Court on the examination any document or thing in the person or corporation's possession relating to the description of the person concerned;

(b) direct that the examination be held before an associate judge or judicial registrar.

1. In contrast to Rule 32.05 (discovery from a prospective defendant), Rule 32.03 does not expressly require that there be any "reasonable cause to believe" that the applicant might have the right to obtain relief in the Court. However, "more is required than a mere hunch, suspicion or hope".[1]
2. In First National Group of Independent Real Estate Agents Limited v McGuane,[2] Mukhtar AsJ said the following of Rule 32.03, of which I gratefully adopt:

Although it is not stated in terms, I would hold that there is under rule 32.03 an implicit requirement that evidence must point sufficiently to the existence of a case for relief to make it proper, in the interests of justice that discovery be given or that oral examination be allowed so that a proceeding for relief can be brought. The requirement is implicit textually and, I think, born of necessity having regard to the purposes of the rule as a tool of justice. Rule 32.03(1)(a) addresses, in terms, the predicament of an applicant who (with my emphasis) '...is unable to ascertain the description of a person sufficiently for the purpose of commencing a proceeding in the Court against that person...' I am not to rewrite the rule, but that language to my mind presupposes a belief that a wrongdoing has occurred to the applicant by someone unknown or not identified, and something plausible in support of that. The utility of this rule as a tool of justice is plain: if a wrongdoing has occurred then the Court should lend its aid to enabling a prospective plaintiff to elicit the identity of the wrongdoer. This is why authorities refer to Order 32 as having a beneficent operation. The limitation, which comes to play an important part in this case, is that orders cannot be sought on a flimsy foundation or on a mere hunch that a wrongdoing has occurred.

1. It is therefore is incumbent upon Mr Siegers to demonstrate the following in order to succeed in his application for preliminary discovery:

(a) that he applies for an order of preliminary discovery not merely on a hunch of wrongdoing;

(b) that he applies for an order of preliminary discovery after first making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the description of the possible defendants sufficiently for the purpose of commencing a proceeding in the Court; and

(c) some person has or is likely to have knowledge of facts or documents in their possession which would assist in identifying a possible defendant.

1. It should also be noted that the purpose of Rule 32.03 is strictly limited to obtaining documents from a respondent that will assist in "ascertaining the description of a person sufficiently" to enable the applicant to commence a proceeding in the court against that person. So much is clear from the text of the rule which is expressly directed to ascertaining the description of the person.
2. The word "description" as used in Rule 32.03 is defined in Rule 32.01 as:

description includes the name, place of residence, place of business, occupation and sex of the person against whom the applicant desires to bring a proceeding and whether that person is an individual or a corporation".

1. I note that the definition of "description" uses the word "includes" those matters specified. Ordinarily, the use of the word "includes" rather than "means" in a definition suggests that the matters contemplated by the definition are not exhaustively set out. Thus, the definition serves to bring within its terms matters which might not ordinarily be thought to fall within it. The corollary is that it is open to find that other matters than those set out may also fall within the defined term.[3]
2. Having said that, the term must be construed within the context firstly, of Rule 32.03 and secondly, within the Rules generally.
3. The purpose of the making of an order in Rule 32.03 in relation to the description of the person is so as to permit them to be described "sufficiently for the purpose of commencing a proceeding".
4. All that is required to commence a proceeding against a party is to know their identity, their domicile or place of business (in order to understand whether the court has jurisdiction against that person in respect of the matter) and perhaps whether they are a natural person or a corporation. The definition also includes their sex and occupation. The latter two matters are surprising and thus fulfil the purpose of a utilising a defined term.
5. That purpose of the rule might suggest, at first blush, that ancillary documents such as are sought in subparagraphs 6(a) (c) and (d) above are beyond the permitted scope of an order under Rule 32.03. However, for the reasons discussed at paragraph 8 above, upon closer consideration, each of those categories of documents will assist the applicant to identify persons sufficiently to enable him to commence a proceeding against them.
6. The fact that such documents may also be the subject of an order under Rule 32.05 as "information to enable the applicant to decide whether to commence a proceeding in the Court to obtain that relief" to which they have reasonable cause to believe they may be entitled, does not limit the scope of Rule 32.03. The rules exist for different purposes and the fact that documents may be susceptible to an order under either rule, does not limit the reach of either of those rules.
7. In relation to factor (a), the evidence filed by Mr Siegers in support of his application for preliminary discovery demonstrates overwhelmingly that he has been defrauded. I am therefore satisfied that he is acting not merely upon a hunch that wrongdoing has occurred.
8. Considering the potential causes of action available to Mr Siegers, one commences with a claim against those whose fraudulent misrepresentations caused him to initially transfer his funds to his Binance exchange wallet and thereafter to purchase cryptocurrency utilising those funds. Those and further misrepresentations then caused him to transfer those cryptocurrency assets to exchange wallets controlled by the fraudsters. It is reasonable to suppose that each exchange wallet through which those funds were transferred were controlled by the fraudsters, or by people or entities who were involved in the fraudulent scheme, who ultimately ended up with the cryptocurrency and, presumably used them to purchase things, or converted them back to cash.
9. To the extent that this is correct it is likely that Mr Siegers would have good causes of action against any and all those who made the misrepresentations and all holders of those exchange wallets in money had and received, fraudulent misrepresentation, breaches of fiduciary duty and constructive trust, and contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law.
10. In relation to factor (b), the affidavit of Mr Siegers' solicitor, Mr McLaughlin, deposes to a number of actions undertaken to identify the wrongdoers, including an inquiry with Victoria Police, an IFW Preliminary Investigation Report dated 22 October 2023 and an IFW Cryptocurrency Trace Report dated 12 March 2025. Those attempts have revealed the identity of many wallets through which the cryptocurrency travelled.
11. The identity of the holder of one of those wallets has been ascertained as "Anastasia Romatshova", including IP addresses and email addresses.
12. The identity of the other wallet holders is unknown.
13. Further, Mr Siegers' solicitors depose to communications with seven of the eight named respondents, with several indicating that they would first require an order of the Court to provide documents. The information extracted in the course of these investigations as it currently stands would not be sufficient for Mr Siegers to identify the defendants to the legal proceedings he wishes to commence. I conclude in this regard that Mr Siegers has made reasonable inquiries but has been unable to ascertain the identity of the perpetrators of the scam sufficiently to enable him to commence proceedings against them.
14. In relation to factor (c), Mr Siegers has identified a number of respondents who are likely to hold information to identify the holders of the exchange wallets. In fact, several respondents have confirmed that the information requested is linked to known customers or users, but that they were unwilling to or unable to provide documents or user information without an order of the Court.
15. Having regard to all of these matters I am satisfied that I should make an order under Rule 32.03. I will discuss with counsel the exact scope of the orders I am prepared to make.

DISCOVERY FROM THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS

In accordance with Rule 32.03, the First and Second Respondents make discovery to the Applicant of the following documents relating to the receiving wallet addresses (Binance Wallets) for transactions between 11 March 2023 and 2 May 2023 as set out in Annexure A:

(a) any documents, notes, records, emails or other electronic communication associated with the transactions between 11 March 2023 and 2 May 2023 evidencing the transfer of cryptocurrency assets to and from the Binance Wallets;

(b) any documents and/or records showing the identity and/or addresses of any persons and/or entities associated with the transactions between 11 March 2023 and 2 May 2023 to the Binance Wallets;

(c) any documents and/or records showing the current balance of any accounts associated with the transactions between 11 March 2023 and 2 May 2023 and any other accounts held by the same persons and/or entities; and;

(d) statements for any accounts associated with the transactions between 11 March 2023 and 2 May 2023 for the period 11 March 2023 to the present date.

In accordance with Rule 32.03, the Third Respondent make discovery to the Applicant of the following documents relating to the receiving wallet address (BitStamp Wallet) for the transaction on 25 April 2023 as set out in Annexure B:

(a) any documents, notes, records, emails or other electronic communication associated with the transaction on 25 April 2023 evidencing the transfer of cryptocurrency assets to and from the BitStamp Wallet;

(b) any documents and/or records showing the identity and/or addresses of any persons and/or entities associated with the transaction on 25 April 2023 to the BitStamp Wallet;

(c) any documents and/or records showing the current balance of any accounts associated with the transaction on 25 April 2023 and any other accounts held by the same persons and/or entities; and

(d) statements for any accounts associated with the transaction on 25 April 2023 for the period 25 April 2023 to the present date.

In accordance with Rule 32.03, the Fourth Respondent make discovery to the Plaintiff of the following documents relating to the receiving wallet address (Galaxy Digital Wallet) for the transaction on 4 May 2023 as set out in Annexure C:

(a) any documents, notes, records, emails or other electronic communication associated with the transaction on 4 May 2023 evidencing the transfer of cryptocurrency assets to and from the Galaxy Digital Wallet;

(b) any documents and/or records showing the identity and/or addresses of any persons and/or entities associated with the transaction on 4 May 2023 to the Galaxy Digital Wallet;

(c) any documents and/or records showing the current balance of any accounts associated with the transaction on 4 May 2023 and any other accounts held by the same persons and/or entities; and

(d) statements for any accounts associated with the transaction on 4 May 2023 for the period 4 May 2023 to the present date.

In accordance with Rule 32.03, the Fifth Respondent make discovery to the Applicant of the following documents relating to the receiving wallet address (HitBTC Wallet) for the transaction on 4 May 2023 as set out in Annexure D:

(a) any documents, notes, records, emails or other electronic communication associated with the transaction on 4 May 2023 evidencing the transfer of cryptocurrency assets to and from the HitBTC Wallet;

(b) any documents and/or records showing the identity and/or addresses of any persons and/or entities associated with the transaction on 4 May 2023 to the HitBTC Wallet;

(c) any documents and/or records showing the current balance of any accounts associated with the transaction on 4 May 2023 and any other accounts held by the same persons and/or entities; and

(d) statements for any accounts associated with the transaction on 4 May 2023 for the period 4 May 2023 to the present day.

In accordance with Rule 32.03, the Sixth Respondent make discovery to the plaintiff of the following documents relating to the receiving wallet addresses (KuCoin Wallets) for transactions between 5 April 2023 and 28 April 2023 as set out in Annexure E:

(a) any documents, notes, records, emails or other electronic communication associated with the transactions between 5 April 2023 and 28 April 2023 evidencing the transfer of cryptocurrency assets to and from the KuCoin Wallets;

(b) any documents and/or records showing the identity and/or addresses of any persons and/or entities associated with the transactions between 5 April 2023 and 28 April 2023 to the KuCoin Wallets;

(c) any documents and/or records showing the current balance of any accounts associated with the transactions between 5 April 2023 and 28 April 2023, and any other accounts held by the same persons and/or entities; and

(d) statements for any accounts associated with the transactions between 5 April 2023 and 28 April 2023 for the period 5 April 2023 to the present date.

In accordance with Rule 32.03, the Seventh Respondent make discovery to the Applicant of the following documents relating to the wallet address (N.Exchange Wallet) for the transactions between 17 April 2023 and 5 May 2023 as set out in Annexure F:

(a) any documents, notes, records, emails or other electronic communication associated with the transactions between 17 April 2023 and 5 May 2023 evidencing the transfer of cryptocurrency assets to and from the N.Exchange Wallet;

(b) any documents and/or records showing the identity and/or addresses of any persons and/or entities associated with the transactions between 17 April 2023 and 5 May 2023 to the N.Exchange Wallet;

(c) any documents and/or records showing the current balance of any accounts associated with the transactions between 17 April 2023 and 5 May 2023 and any other accounts held by the same persons and/or entities; and

(d) statements for any accounts associated with the transactions between 17 April 2023 and 5 May 2023 for the period 17 April 2023 to the present date.

In accordance with Rule 32.03, the Eighth Respondent make discovery to the Applicant of the following documents relating to the receiving wallet address (VALR Wallet) for the transaction on 28 April 2023 as set out in Annexure G:

(a) any documents, notes, records, emails or other electronic communication associated with the transaction on 28 April 2023 evidencing the transfer of cryptocurrency assets to and from the VALR Wallet;

(b) any documents and/or records showing the identity and/or addresses of any persons and/or entities associated with the transaction on 28 April 2023 to the VALR Wallet;

(c) any documents and/or records showing the current balance of any accounts associated with the transaction on 28 April 2023 and any other accounts held by the same persons and/or entities; and

(d) statements for any accounts associated with the transaction on 28 April 2023 for the period 28 April 2023 to the present date.

0x8ba63abb2047bfa4ff 3385434f6b11f4fb4dd1 e6fb9c09e974b4209b8

0x5e13e542d2b37c278 c1082bae0a5603f9cc7 5da20f32b36b5684e8c

0x84726ad51640d8692 c418529797a990975f7 efb41bf8b72020237945

0x31c306b5cfd04cfbec 5a590610763de1e21ab cb8637233f51818b802

0x0a0c89524acb25b34 89ca55cbaa76391c31c 092b4c599a92098ae51

0x09839bee1c98dc80a 8dd255661a32569c8fc c1cd1d575236d0c190e

0x0b1b74ed8c79882e0 4143dbf6e43c8d8e516 1a1e7dc49f2e64ae63fd

0x54ec24fef76935b6e7 3eb23f3059f2ceb0e49d 0e50a43efd44e735e91

0x7eb10e667e2dec7bb 2ea326690ba3b2a7e1e 1ae614b7769999ae886

0xf2930d75bb4f519980 f7cebc7eb62e012bf674 bcc08f902b618e45796

0xac1400217f1c5d48b 64a5f6a69b29734cdac 3063c35e2ca26ff0bd0c

0xa22d4d7a7633d26a9 7bc54c5852915ff2aed6 95b437594b2a1079246

0xeacd44b1b8dd4699ff dea6f24d7a853b4d30f0 fdd393a074247b9d536

0x9ebed154042ab9ae7 3eac5ec2feac980df550 2f214f7a8df4726bf71c8

I certify that these 34 pages are a true copy of the judgment of His Honour Judge Wise delivered on 23 January 2026.

It should be noted by email dated [1]0 January 2026 and further letter dated 22 January 2026, Binance advised that "Nest Services Limited, now renamed Nest Exchange Limited ("NEL") is no longer registered in the Seychelles as of 5 January 2026 and has since moved to ADGM." I will make an order that the court heading be amended to name the first defendant as *Nest Exchange Limited.

[1] Primrose Textiles Pty Ltd v Kolliner [1999] VSC 69, citing McCracken v Stockdale (VSC, Beach J, No 9148/94, 27 March 1995, unreported.

[2] [2017] VSC 131.

[3] See Herzfeld and Prince, Interpretation, (Thomson Reuters 3rd Ed) at [3.70].