In an interesting lawsuit against the broker platform UFX and its operator Reliantco Investments Ltd, Ramona Ang the wife of Craig Wright – the man who claims to be the Bitcoin inventor behind the synonym Satoshi Nakamoto – claims that she lost $3 million worth of Bitcoin after her trading account on UFX was wrongfull suspended and closed.
The Court Case
According to the court documents, Ang opened her account with UFX.com in January 2017 and invested approximately $200,000 from her personal funds. Ang was required to click a button to indicate that she accepted UFX‘s (Reliantco‘s) terms and conditions, which included an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favor of the Cyprus courts.
The claim arose from the alleged blocking of access to Ang’s account by UFX (Reliantco) in August 2017 and its subsequent refusal to allow her to withdraw funds from the UFX platform. Ang alleged that Reliantco should compensate her for the loss of her open bitcoin positions, which she claimed in August 2017 equated to approximately $1.1 million and, at the time of commencing the legal proceedings, would have been in excess of $3 million.
Consequently, Ramona Ang claims that Reliantco “wrongfully blocked and terminated her account and should compensate her for the losses of her open Bitcoin positions” and filed her lawsuit in the UK.
UFX and ParagonEX
UFX is part of the ParagonEX network of companies and brand around the Israeli Forex veterans Haim Toledano, Saar Pilosof and the Dutch Dennis-Hendrik de Jong. Several regulators in North America, Australia, and Europe issued investor warnings against UFX and its operators UFX Global Limited, UFX Markets Global Inc, and Reliantco Investments Ltd.
Currently, ParagonEX is doing a reverse takeover with the NASDAQ-listed MICT Ing. Read the FinTelegram report here.
Reliantco’s Challenge of Jurisdiction
Ang issued proceedings in England, her country of residence. UFX (Reliantco) challenged the jurisdiction of the English court on the basis of the exclusive jurisdiction clause and Article 25 of the recast EU Brussels Regulation. Ang claimed that the exclusive jurisdiction clause was ineffective and did not require her to bring the claim in Cyprus because:
- she was a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 4 (Articles 17 to 19) of the recast EU Brussels Regulation; or
- the jurisdiction clause was not incorporated into her contract with Reliantco in such a way as to satisfy the requirements of Article 25.
Ang claimed that she had received hyperlinks to Reliantco’s terms and conditions (which included the exclusive jurisdiction clause), but that they did not work, such that they took her to an error page.
Important Court Decision – Reliantco’s jurisdiction challenge dismissed
On April 12, 2019, the UK High Court judge Andrew Baker rejected Reliantco’s jurisdiction challenge ( Case No: CL-2018-00038). The judge held that the contract between Ang and UFX (Reliantco) fell within Article 17 of the recast EU Brussels Regulation and Ang contracted with Reliantco as a
This judgment is interesting for the thousands of victims of unauthori
The EU Regulation provides special rules for insurance, consumer and employment contracts which may permit the “weaker party” to these contracts – i.e. insurance policyholders, consumers, and employees – to sue in their state of domicile. The special protection these articles provide has as