Ireland - Market Insights

Ireland’s fraud and asset-tracing landscape

Online and cryptocurrency fraud is a growing global challenge, increasing the complexity of cross-border disputes. Ireland is well placed to support asset tracing and recovery, noting that it has a common law system and its courts are experienced in hearing complex cross-border matters. Recent judicial developments illustrate how Irish courts are adapting their approach to fraud and asset tracing in response to these evolving risks. The developments outlined below highlight key trends for practitioners to keep in mind.

Reliefs

The Irish courts have a broad inherent jurisdiction to grant certain forms of pre-trial relief in fraud and asset recovery cases. This includes proprietary injunctive relief, Mareva orders, disclosure orders and the appointment of receivers to recover and hold assets pending hearing. Our position as one of the EU’s only remaining common law jurisdictions creates a distinctive framework for cross-border asset recovery, particularly given that Irish orders are recognised throughout the EU under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. Recent case law has signalled a more expansive approach to disclosure remedies, most notably Boulbet v. SumUp Ltd [2025] IEHC 285.

Norwich Pharmacal Orders

A Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) requires an innocent third party to disclose information enabling a plaintiff to identify a wrongdoer. Such orders are particularly valuable where the fraudster’s identity is unknown or the movement of funds must be traced.

In Blythe v. Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2023] IECA 255, the Court of Appeal articulated the governing principles for obtaining an NPO. A plaintiff must establish a strong case, and the court expressly rejected the lower English threshold of “good arguable case” as insufficient. The defendant must have been involved in the wrongdoing, and the information must likely be in their possession, necessary for proceedings, and unavailable by other practicable means. The court balances disclosure against countervailing factors, with an implied undertaking governing use of disclosed information.

A significant expansion of the jurisdiction occurred in the recent case of Boulbet v. SumUp Ltd [2025] IEHC 285, where the plaintiff was allegedly defrauded of EUR 280,000 and EUR 1.5 million by individuals. The court granted both an NPO and a Bankers Trust Order in ordering SumUp to disclose information pertaining to certain accounts to which the proceeds of the fraud had been directed. The decision breaks new ground: disclosure was ordered extending beyond names to include photographic identification documents used to set up the accounts. This went materially further than any prior Irish authority, demonstrating a judicial willingness to assist in cross-border recovery where suspected fraud is present.

Bankers Trust Orders

The Bankers Trust Order (BTO) permits discovery of confidential customer information held by financial institutions. The jurisdiction derives from Bankers Trust Co v. Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274, where Lord Denning emphasised that such disclosure “should only be done when there is a good ground for thinking the money in the bank is the plaintiff’s money”. BTOs are “extraordinary remedies” not to be “regarded as the common coin of litigation” (Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim (No. 5) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 543). The governing Kyriakou principles require:

• good grounds for supposing the assets belong to the claimant;
• a real prospect disclosure will lead to location or preservation of assets;
• the order be no wider than necessary;
• the claimant’s interests balanced against potential detriment to the respondent; and
• appropriate undertakings.

Boulbet represents the first Irish BTO, with Nolan J expressly endorsing the Kyriakou framework.

Tracing digital assets

As the digital financial sphere continues to expand, the transfer of the proceeds of fraud into digital and cryptoassets is increasing. Litigation relating to misappropriated funds in crypto exchanges is also on the rise. Often the most effective way of recovering these assets is by engaging with the crypto platforms to which the funds have been directed and/or seeking orders from them concerning the identity of the wrongdoer.

Once the proceeds of fraud are funnelled into the digital realm it is essential that action is taken as soon as possible to prevent those funds being transferred from crypto exchanges and/or platforms and into private wallets, at which point recovery becomes significantly more difficult. Seeking immediate interim relief may be necessary. In this regard, the Irish courts have already recognised cryptoassets as “assets” subject to freezing orders (CAB v. Mannion [2018] IEHC 729; Trafalgar Developments Ltd v. Mazepin [2019] IEHC 7).

Plaintiffs have successfully engaged cryptographic tracing firms to trace stolen Bitcoin to accounts with Coinbase Europe Limited, obtaining NPOs requiring disclosure of account holder identities within five days (Williams v. Coinbase Europe Ltd [2021] IEHC (High Court Record No. 2021/348P); Stanbury v. Coinbase Europe Ltd [2022] IEHC (High Court Record No. 2022/714P)). A practical challenge remains: once cryptocurrency reaches an exchange address, the trail may go cold, as exchanges typically merge funds into omnibus wallets and credit customer accounts through off-chain internal accounting.

Recent Irish legislative developments in the area of crypto fraud are bulleted below:

• Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Act 2021. Implements the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive into Irish law and extends anti‑money laundering obligations to virtual asset service providers, including crypto exchanges and wallet custodians.
• Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 on information accompanying transfers of funds and certain cryptoassets. Introduces traceability requirements for cryptoasset transactions carried out through intermediaries or service providers.
• Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in cryptoassets. Under this Regulation, the Central Bank of Ireland acts as the designated supervisory body for cryptoasset service providers. Increased regulation will lead to more rigorous recording obligations and improve the environment for tracing digital assets.

Technology to aid asset recovery

Technology is assuming an increasingly central role in international asset recovery, being increasingly utilised during investigations and fraud litigation. The Irish courts have demonstrated a progressive approach, notably becoming the second jurisdiction globally to permit the use of predictive coding in discovery in Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd and Others v. Quinn and Others [2015] IEHC 175. This landmark decision reflects an early and enduring acceptance of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in civil proceedings in Ireland.

The rapid development of generative AI technology means that most providers now incorporate sophisticated AI tools for information gathering and review, easing the collection of relevant data in aid of asset tracing and recovery.

The Law Society of Ireland has also issued guidance on the use of generative AI (Guidance for Solicitors on Generative Artificial Intelligence – November 2025), emphasising that practitioners remain responsible for ensuring accuracy, protecting confidentiality and legal privilege, and complying with statutory obligations, including those arising under Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the “EU AI Act”) on AI.

AML enforcement

There has been a marked increase in enforcement activity relating to anti-money laundering (AML) in Ireland in recent years, with the largest AML fine in Irish history being issued by the Central Bank of Ireland to Coinbase Europe Limited in November 2025. The Irish High Court confirmed this penalty in January 2026.

Attention should be given to the EU’s new AML/CFT legislative package, comprising a regulation establishing the Anti‑Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) and a Single AML/CFT Rulebook.

AMLA is responsible for supervising certain “obliged entities” and supporting Member States’ Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs). In Ireland, the FIU operates within the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau (GNECB). While AMLA commenced certain non‑supervisory functions on 1 July 2025, the Single Rulebook is expected to apply from 1 July 2027.

An increased level of cross-border cooperation and coordination among the national authorities in the EU will likely have implications for cross-border civil asset recovery and lead to greater tools for international asset tracing and recovery.

Deepfakes

Ireland’s regulatory environment is tightening around AI-related risks, including the growing threat posed by deepfakes. The EU AI Act introduces specific requirements for AI-generated content, including obligations relating to deepfake misuse. These provisions are set to take full effect from August 2026.

At national level, the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 proposes a new regulatory structure, with enhanced enforcement powers, the establishment of Oifig IS na hÉireann as the central coordinating authority, and a role for existing regulators in supervising artificial intelligence within their sectors.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on AI has also identified content authenticity and recommender systems as priority areas, signalling that organisations will need robust verification and response mechanisms for AI-generated content.

Concluding remarks

Ireland’s legal framework for fraud and asset recovery is well established. Whilst new challenges are emerging in the form of AI deepfakes and cryptocurrencies, Irish practitioners and courts are well-equipped to address these evolving threats. The Irish courts have demonstrated a willingness to adapt traditional equitable remedies to modern technologies; this being complemented by ongoing legislative developments in these areas.