A constructive trust can be relevant to a digital-asset recovery claim, but it is not a shortcut that forces an exchange or wallet holder to return assets. The claimant must identify the property, legal basis, defendant and traceable path. The governing law and forum matter.

What must the evidence show?

Start with the wallet and exchange records, transaction hashes, account terms, purchase and transfer documents, and communications showing who was entitled to the asset. Preserve a chain from the asset claimed to the asset or proceeds now targeted. A blockchain transaction alone may show movement without proving the legal character of that movement or who controlled an exchange account.

The English High Court’s D’Aloia v Persons Unknown judgment discussed USDT as property and constructive-trust principles. The claim against Bitkub nevertheless failed because the claimant did not prove his funds reached the relevant wallet; see the court’s conclusion at paragraphs 382–383. That adverse outcome is part of the lesson, not a footnote to omit.

Does English case law apply in the UAE?

Not automatically. D’Aloia is an English decision. The DIFC Digital Assets Law provides a DIFC framework for digital assets, while ADGM’s legal system incorporates English common law. UAE onshore law, a foreign governing-law clause or arbitration may lead to a different analysis. Identify the forum before applying any case as authority.

What if assets are moving now?

Preserve evidence immediately and obtain advice on the available interim remedies in the correct forum. The practical risk is dissipation and loss of traceability. There is no reliable universal recovery percentage, cost range or “hours until recovery fails” rule. An application for urgent relief still needs a defendant, evidence and a viable legal basis.

Sources and notes

Updated 24 September 2026. This guide is general information, not a prediction of recovery.