{"id":137190,"date":"2026-04-08T11:54:16","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T11:54:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=137190"},"modified":"2026-04-15T13:33:03","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T13:33:03","slug":"united-states-asset-tracing-and-recovery","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/united-states-asset-tracing-and-recovery\/","title":{"rendered":"United States: Asset Tracing &amp; Recovery"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-137190","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-asset-tracing-and-recovery","jurisdictions-united-states"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Steptoe<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/03\/steptoe.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Steptoe<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/03\/steptoe.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Asset Tracing &amp; Recovery laws and regulations applicable in United States<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the legal framework governing civil asset recovery in your jurisdiction, including key statutes, regulations, and international conventions that have been incorporated into domestic law?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In the United States (U.S.), civil asset recovery is based on common law and equitable causes of action, supplemented by federal and state statutes.<\/p>\n<p>Domestic civil asset recovery tools include:<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Non-statutory claims and remedies<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>fraud<\/li>\n<li>conversion<\/li>\n<li>unjust enrichment<\/li>\n<li>duty-based claims (e.g. breach of fiduciary duty)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u2022 Statutory claims and remedies<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO)<\/li>\n<li>fraudulent transfer laws such as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act of 1984 (UFTA) and Uniform Voidable Transactions Act of 2014 (UVTA)<\/li>\n<li>Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA)<\/li>\n<li>State-specific statutes such as California Penal Code \u00a7 496(c)<\/li>\n<li>Insolvency proceedings under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or analogous state law<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Enforcement of foreign civil money judgments is generally governed by:<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act of 1962 (adopted by nine states including Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and Massachusetts)<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act of 2005 (adopted by twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia including the major commercial states of New York, Texas, California, and Illinois)<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 common-law comity principles in non-adopting states (twelve states including Louisiana, Wisconsin and South Carolina)<\/p>\n<p>Arbitral awards are separately governed by:<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Domestic awards<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and analogous state laws<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u2022 Foreign awards<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the FAA, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the \u201cNew York Convention\u201d), the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (the \u201cPanama Convention\u201d), and the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes Convention (the \u201cICSID Convention\u201d)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What types of assets may be subject to civil recovery proceedings (e.g., real property, bank accounts, securities, cryptocurrencies, intellectual property, business interests or other categories of property)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>U.S. courts have the power to allow litigants to obtain civil recovery by executing against essentially any type of asset. Assets owned by foreign sovereigns are an exception. The right to recover on such assets is governed and limited by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Some states also limit a judgment creditors ability to execute against a debtor\u2019s residence (commonly referred to as a \u201chomestead exemption).<\/p>\n<p>U.S. courts can permit execution against a debtor\u2019s bank accounts (garnishment\/turnover), shares and membership interests (turnover\/charging orders), debts owed to the debtor (garnishment\/third-party orders), real estate (judgment liens, writs of execution, sheriff\u2019s sale), and movables\/chattels (levy and sale). Courts can also reach intangible assets and receivables.<\/p>\n<p>U.S. law is unsettled with respect to recovery of digital assets such as cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens. At present, there is no uniform statutory definition for \u201ccryptocurrency.\u201d The current regulatory landscape is a patchwork of different laws, interpretations and guidance. Most crypto-related litigation has taken place in California and New York.<\/p>\n<p>So far, recovery of digital assets is addressed using existing remedies\u2014injunctions, attachment, receivership, and turnover\u2014adapted to exchange accounts, wallets, and keys. However, these assets present practical hurdles including the speed at which these assets can be moved, the necessity of cooperation from digital asset exchanges, privacy coins which mask transaction and owner details, crypto mixers which pool assets from different users and make tracing assets difficult, and unhosted wallets which prevent third parties from accessing the assets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the primary civil law causes of action and mechanisms available for asset recovery? Please briefly distinguish these from any criminal confiscation or forfeiture regimes.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>See Response to Question 1 above.<\/p>\n<p>Common law claims are generally available in all states and include:<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 fraud<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 aiding and abetting (which requires a predicate cause of action)<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 civil conspiracy<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 conversion<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 negligence\/gross negligence<\/p>\n<p>Equitable claims are also generally available in most states and include:<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 unjust enrichment\/money had or received<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 breach of fiduciary duty<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 breach of trust<\/p>\n<p>Statutory claims under state law vary across states, whereas federal claims are recognized anywhere in the U.S. Some of these federal and state statutory claims include:<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Federal<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>RICO<\/li>\n<li>AMLA, which only allows causes of action to be brought by federal and state law enforcement authorities<\/li>\n<li>Insolvency proceedings under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u2022 State<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>fraudulent transfer laws such as the UFTA\/UVTA<\/li>\n<li>statutes such as California Penal Code \u00a7 496(c), which allows an action for a wrongdoer\u2019s knowing receipt of stolen property and permits recovery of treble damages<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Unlike civil recovery actions, criminal confiscation and forfeiture primarily arises only under state law. They typically require a criminal conviction and apply the criminal burden of proof of \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d Notably, despite the criminal provisions of RICO, a civil RICO action does not require a predicate criminal conviction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who has standing to initiate civil asset recovery proceedings (e.g. private parties, corporations, trustees, insolvency practitioners, receivers, or state agencies)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Anyone with a claim to the assets generally has standing to initiate civil asset recovery proceedings. However, certain causes of action, especially those provided by statute, may only be available to government actors. For example, the AMLA does not provide a private cause of action for asset recovery and only allows for actions by federal and state law enforcement authorities.<\/p>\n<p>The same is true in insolvency proceedings, during which any party with a claim to the assets of the insolvent company may seek recovery of those assets, division of which is determined by the priorities set forth in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the legal status of foreign states or governmental entities bringing civil asset recovery actions? Are any limitations imposed by sovereign immunity, forum non conveniens, or other doctrines?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Foreign states and governmental entities may bring civil actions, including asset recovery claims, in U.S. courts. Under the FSIA, foreign states are presumptively immune from suit as defendants, but when they proceed as plaintiffs, they generally waive immunity for claims and counterclaims arising from the same transaction or occurrence. Although initiating suit does not constitute a blanket waiver of all immunities, it permits the court to adjudicate the foreign state\u2019s claims and certain related counterclaims, while preserving immunity from unrelated claims and from execution against sovereign property absent a separate FSIA exception.<\/p>\n<p>However, as in other jurisdictions, U.S. courts will not enforce foreign penal or revenue laws. Foreign states therefore cannot sue to collect taxes, fines, or other public-law liabilities arising solely under their sovereign authority. Instead, they must frame civil asset recovery actions as private\u2011law claims with recognized causes of action under U.S. law rather than attempts to exercise extraterritorial sovereign power.<\/p>\n<p>Forum non conveniens is generally available as a defense (except for claims under the FSIA) and applies equally when the plaintiff is a foreign state. U.S. courts balance private and public interest factors, including convenience, evidentiary access, local interest, and judicial burden, and may dismiss in favor of a more appropriate foreign forum. While a foreign sovereign\u2019s interest as plaintiff is considered, it does not receive deference beyond that given to other plaintiffs.<\/p>\n<p>Standing and capacity to sue may turn on recognition of the foreign government by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Under the act\u2011of\u2011state doctrine and political question principles embedded in U.S. foreign\u2011relations law, courts accept the Executive\u2019s determination of which entity is the legitimate government of a foreign state. If a regime lacks recognition, it may be unable to assert state\u2011owned rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are corporate vehicles, trusts, foundations, nominees and other intermediaries treated in civil recovery proceedings when pursuing assets held through layered structures? Are veil-piercing or analogous doctrines available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under U.S. law, corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), trusts, and other legal entities are separate juridical persons and courts are generally reluctant to disregard those structures.<\/p>\n<p>Corporate veil\u2011piercing is available but narrowly applied. It often requires the higher evidentiary burden of \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d and varies by state. In most jurisdictions, a claimant must show (1) unity of interest and ownership between the individual wrongdoer and the entity such that their separate personalities no longer exist, and (2) that respecting the corporate form would sanction fraud or promote injustice. Veil\u2011piercing appears most often where the entity is undercapitalized, formalities are ignored, or it is used as an instrumentality for fraud<\/p>\n<p>Aside from veil piercing, there are several other ways that civil recovery actions can reach assets held through layered or opaque structures:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Agency principles, allowing a claimant to establish that an entity acted as an agent of its controller or another principal. Where agency is shown, the principal may be held liable for acts taken in the entity\u2019s name or may be treated as the beneficial owner of assets nominally held by the entity.<\/li>\n<li>Trust law doctrines, including constructive and resulting trusts, which are widely used in asset\u2011recovery litigation. Courts may impose a constructive trust where property is obtained through fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or other wrongdoing, giving the claimant a proprietary interest in assets held by trustees, nominees, corporate affiliates, or other intermediaries. Illusory\u2011trust arguments also arise\u2014particularly when a settlor retains excessive control suggesting the trust was never validly constituted.<\/li>\n<li>Fraudulent\u2011transfer laws, primarily the UFTA\/UVTA, allow courts to unwind transactions made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, or transfers for less than reasonably equivalent value when the debtor is insolvent or rendered insolvent. This enables claimants to reach assets routed through layered corporate or trust structures.<\/li>\n<li>Equitable remedies against knowing participants, including claims for aiding and abetting fraud, unjust enrichment, and receipt of stolen or misappropriated assets permit recovery from intermediaries\u2014such as nominees, shell entities, or trust vehicles\u2014that participated in or benefited from the underlying misconduct.<\/li>\n<li>Prejudgment remedies (discussed further in Question 10 and 11), including federal and state asset\u2011freezing injunctions, turnover orders, and receiverships, allow for the marshalling of assets held by third parties when there is evidence the defendant beneficially owns or controls them, even if title rests with a corporate or trust intermediary.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the jurisdictional requirements for bringing civil asset recovery proceedings in the courts of your jurisdiction? How are conflicts of jurisdiction resolved?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>To hear a case, all U.S. courts require personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject matter jurisdiction over the case. State trial courts are known as courts of general jurisdiction, and, as such, subject matter jurisdiction is rarely an issue unless a party files suit in the wrong state court (such as filing a civil asset recovery action in traffic court). However, as required by the U.S. Constitution, state courts must still have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in order to hear a case and provide remedies against the defendant.<\/p>\n<p>Personal jurisdiction requires that a defendant have sufficient \u201cminimum contacts\u201d with the state in which the case is brought to satisfy the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution. For claims brought in federal court, the defendant must have sufficient contacts with the state in which the federal court sits. For example, a lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York requires that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the state of New York.<\/p>\n<p>Personal jurisdiction can be a fact-intensive inquiry that looks at the defendant\u2019s conduct. For corporate entities, however, a state in which that company is incorporated or in which it has its \u201cprincipal place of business\u201d automatically has personal jurisdiction over the company, known as \u201cgeneral jurisdiction.\u201d In the absence of general jurisdiction, the defendant must have \u201cpurposefully availed\u201d itself of the privileges of conducting activities in the state and the lawsuit must arise from the defendant\u2019s contacts with the state in order for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.<\/p>\n<p>The final question for personal jurisdiction, in both state and federal court, is whether the state\u2019s \u201clong-arm\u201d statute is satisfied. In practice, most states\u2019 long-arm statute is similar to the minimum contacts test above.<\/p>\n<p>Subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court can be split into two types: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. At least one must be satisfied for the court to hear a case.<\/p>\n<p>Federal question jurisdiction requires that a claim arise under federal law. In general, this requires that a cause of action be brought pursuant to a federal statute.<\/p>\n<p>Diversity jurisdiction requires that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>all plaintiffs have different citizenship than all defendants (i.e., citizens of different U.S. states or non-U.S. citizens); and<\/li>\n<li>the amount in controversy is more than USD 75,000.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your jurisdiction recognize and enforce foreign civil judgments and orders relating to asset recovery? What are the procedural requirements and grounds for refusal?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. The U.S. recognizes and enforces foreign civil judgments and orders pertaining to asset recovery. However, there is no single federal statute governing the treatment of foreign judgments. Instead, as outlined in Question 1 above, states generally follow one of three overarching approaches to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act of 1962 (the 1962 Act)<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act of 2005 (the 2005 Act)<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Common law principles of comity or other state laws<\/p>\n<p>The 1962 and 2005 Acts are largely similar, with the 2005 Act serving as an updated framework with more precise terminology. Under both Acts, demonstrating that a foreign judgment falls within their scope requires showing that the judgment is, in the issuing country: (1) final, (2) conclusive, and (3) enforceable. If these criteria are satisfied, the judgment is presumed eligible for recognition and enforcement.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, various grounds may render a foreign judgment non-recognizable or non-enforceable. These grounds are categorized as either mandatory or discretionary. A mandatory defense, once established, compels a court to deny enforcement. A discretionary defense allows the court to determine whether enforcement is appropriate under the circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>Mandatory defenses:<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Systemic absence of impartial tribunals or denial of due process\u2014due process is constitutionally required in the U.S., and this defense appears in both the 1962 and 2005 Acts.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants\u2014also a constitutional requirement and incorporated in both Acts. Both Acts specify circumstances establishing valid personal jurisdiction, such as personal service in the foreign forum or consent to the foreign jurisdiction through a contractual forum-selection clause.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Lack of subject matter jurisdiction\u2014although not expressly identified in the Acts, this requirement applies to federal courts and many state courts, as discussed in Question 7.<\/p>\n<p>Discretionary defenses:<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Insufficient integrity of the rendering court or lack of due process in the specific proceeding\u2014the 2005 Act expands on the 1962 Act by allowing a challenge based on unfairness in the specific case at issue, rather than requiring proof of systemic deficiencies.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Inadequate notice to defendant\u2014available under both Acts and generally requiring evidence that the party subject to the judgment did not receive proper notice or an opportunity to respond.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Additional discretionary defenses under the Acts include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>fraud<\/li>\n<li>public policy<\/li>\n<li>conflict with another final judgment<\/li>\n<li>failure to comply with statutes of limitations<\/li>\n<li>lack of jurisdiction in the foreign court (usually regarding personal jurisdiction<\/li>\n<li>\u00a0judgment in violation of a valid agreement to resolve disputes elsewhere<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In states that have not adopted either the 1962 or 2005 Acts, the standards and defenses are generally comparable. Typically, a foreign judgment entered by a competent court that provided due process will be treated as enforceable unless a recognized ground for denying enforcement exists, such as fraud or lack of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, although the 1962 and 2005 Acts are substantially similar, two key distinctions are worth specific mention:<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 Unlike the 1962 Act, which leaves allocation of burdens of proof to judicial discretion, the 2005 Act clearly assigns the burden to the party seeking enforcement to demonstrate the Act\u2019s applicability, after which the resisting party must prove any ground for nonrecognition.<\/p>\n<p>\u2022 The 1962 Act does not include a limitation period for recognition actions. The 2005 Act provides that such actions must be filed either within the period during which the judgment remains effective in the issuing country or within 15 years, whichever occurs first. Some states have modified this 15-year period to be longer or shorter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What mechanisms exist for international cooperation in civil cross-border asset recovery? How can parties obtain evidence or assistance from foreign jursidictions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As discussed in Question 8, foreign judgments may be recognized and enforced in the U.S., enabling recovery against assets located within the country. This framework likewise applies to orders and judgments arising from foreign insolvency proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>With respect to obtaining evidence, the Hague Evidence Convention of 1970\u2014implemented in the U.S. through 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u202f1782 (Section 1782)\u2014permits parties to secure documents from persons in the U.S. for use in proceedings before a foreign or international tribunal. Applications under Section 1782 may be initiated in either of the following ways:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>a letter rogatory issued from a non-U.S. tribunal may be delivered directly to the U.S. district court (usually included as part of an application prepared by a party or other interested person); or<\/li>\n<li>a party or other interested person may make an application, without a letter rogatory, directly to the district court.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>To obtain discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u202f1782, an applicant must meet three initial criteria:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the individual or entity from whom discovery is sought must be \u201cfound\u201d within the federal judicial district;<\/li>\n<li>proceedings must be underway\u2014or reasonably anticipated\u2014before a foreign tribunal, and the requested discovery must be intended for use in those proceedings; and<\/li>\n<li>the applicant must have an interest in the foreign proceeding.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A person\u2019s physical presence in the district generally suffices to compel a deposition. However, federal courts are divided on whether Section 1782 permits compelled production of documents located outside the U.S. merely because the discovery target is present within the district. A business typically qualifies as being \u201cfound\u201d in a district for Section 1782 purposes if it would be subject to personal jurisdiction there, such as when (1) the entity is incorporated or has its principal place of business in the district, or (2) the business has purposefully directed activities toward the forum and the materials sought relate to those activities.<\/p>\n<p>Following entry of judgment, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 69(a)(2) authorizes a judgment creditor\u2014whether holding a foreign or domestic money judgment\u2014to obtain discovery from \u201cany person\u201d to assist in enforcing the judgment. This mechanism is highly effective for identifying assets of a judgment debtor and supports cross\u2011border recovery efforts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What interim measures are available to preserve assets pending resolution (e.g. freezing injunctions, Mareva injunctions, asset preservation orders, saisie conservatoire, attachments)? Please briefly summarise the requirements for obtaining such relief.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The principal pre\u2011judgment remedies available in the United States consist of injunctive relief\u2014such as temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions (PIs)\u2014as well as mechanisms permitting pre\u2011judgment attachment or seizure of assets. TROs and PIs are generally employed to maintain the status quo while litigation proceeds and can be tailored to the circumstances of the dispute. These measures may authorize the taking or control of assets, including attachment, garnishment, replevin (recovery of specific property), and sequestration (placing property into custodial control).<\/p>\n<p>In federal courts a TRO is limited to a 14\u2011day duration, after which the court must conduct a hearing to determine whether it should be converted into a PI, unless the parties agree to extend the 14 days. Both TROs and PIs require showing the same core elements: (1) a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits, (2) imminent and irreparable injury absent relief, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, (4) consistency with the public interest, and (5) provision of a bond to protect the defendant should the plaintiff ultimately not succeed. However, a TRO may be issued ex parte and be based solely on written submissions, whereas obtaining a PI requires an evidentiary hearing and is typically more challenging.<\/p>\n<p>General freezing orders\u2014commonly known as Mareva injunctions\u2014are unavailable in U.S. federal courts following the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999). Instead, U.S. law allows parties to attach particular assets only when statutory or equitable criteria are satisfied and maintains a more pronounced distinction between pre\u2011 and post\u2011judgment remedies than many other jurisdictions. To freeze assets before judgment, a party must establish a specific legal or equitable interest in the asset\u2014such as a security interest\u2014rather than relying on a general damages claim.<\/p>\n<p>Nonetheless, the Grupo Mexicano decision does not prevent state courts from issuing such injunctions and FRCP 64 authorizes federal courts to apply state\u2011law remedies\u2014including asset freezes\u2014when such relief would be available under the law of the state in which the federal court sits or where the property is located.<\/p>\n<p>Likewise, the territorial scope of a federal court\u2019s remedial authority is shaped by the remedies permitted under state law. Some states will order property located outside their borders but controlled by the debtor to be brought within the court\u2019s reach. As a practical strategy, parties should consider the location of the defendant\u2019s assets and initiate enforcement proceedings where most of those assets are situated to avoid territorial limitations.<\/p>\n<p>Whether a defendant must receive notice of an attachment or injunction request depends on local procedural rules. Many jurisdictions require notice unless there is a credible risk that the defendant might dissipate assets if informed. Once the court grants an attachment, the plaintiff delivers the order to a sheriff or other authorized official, who executes the levy. Actual physical seizure is uncommon. Typically, the defendant remains in possession of the restrained property.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What disclosure, tracing, and investigative tools are available in civil proceedings to assist claimants in identifying, tracing, and recovering assets (including any pre-action or in-proceedings mechanisms)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>During litigation, FRCP 26 offers an extensive set of discovery mechanisms, reflecting the U.S.\u2019s broad approach to information gathering. Subject to certain limitations\u2014such as privilege protections and proportionality requirements\u2014a party may obtain discovery from opposing parties and third parties so long as the requested material is reasonably calculated to lead to evidence relevant to the dispute. The information sought does not need to be admissible at trial.<\/p>\n<p>Discovery proceeds through formal requests, including document demands, interrogatories (written questions), and deposition notices (witness examinations). However, the information obtained can only be introduced at trial if it meets applicable evidentiary standards. The party receiving discovery requests may object on numerous grounds, including undue burden or the existence of a privilege. Discovery from non\u2011parties is secured by subpoena, typically issued by counsel without needing prior court approval. The same objections available in party discovery apply to subpoenaed third-parties.<\/p>\n<p>For post\u2011judgment discovery, FRCP 69 authorizes a judgment creditor to obtain information from the debtor and from third parties (such as financial institutions) to assist in identifying and locating assets. If a party refuses to comply with such discovery, FRCP 37 permits the court to impose sanctions, which may include contempt findings and monetary penalties.<\/p>\n<p>In state courts, the exact discovery procedures and available sanctions vary, though most jurisdictions follow an approach that is consistent with federal practice and likewise permit post\u2011judgment discovery.<\/p>\n<p>Asset tracing has become increasingly reliant on technology. Modern tools\u2014including artificial intelligence, blockchain analytics, and digital forensic techniques\u2014allow parties to sift rapidly through large datasets, track financial flows, and assess potential outcomes, greatly improving the efficiency of tracing efforts. This enhanced capability assists parties both in evaluating whether to pursue litigation and in enforcing existing judgments. As with asset concealment, contemporary tracing technologies transcend borders and jurisdictions, enabling assets to be followed from virtually anywhere. Consequently, technology now plays a central role in investigations involving financial fraud and other asset\u2011related misconduct.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What proprietary or analogous remedies (e.g., in rem claims, restitutionary claims, vindicatory actions) are available for recovering misappropriated assets?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Aside from personal damages claims, U.S. law provides a range of proprietary or analogous remedies that enable victims of misappropriation to recover specific assets, assert priority over other creditors, or secure restitution.<\/p>\n<p>A constructive trust might exist if the defendant acquires property through fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, or other wrongful conduct such that equity requires the defendant to hold the asset \u201cin trust\u201d for the benefit of the claimant. The claimant has equitable title to the specific asset or its traceable proceeds and a priority over other creditors if the defendant becomes insolvent.<\/p>\n<p>An equitable lien is similar, but confers a security interest rather than ownership. An equitable lien may be imposed where the claimant\u2019s funds were wrongfully used to acquire, improve, or discharge obligations relating to identifiable property. The lien secures repayment of the misappropriated amount and attaches to the asset or its traceable substitutes.<\/p>\n<p>A creditor can also use tracing or following to recover assets that have been transferred. Tracing usually requires identification of specific property. Following applies to substitute property. U.S. courts also apply presumptions to tracing and following exercises\u2014for example, that a wrongdoer is deemed to spend their own funds first when accounts are mixed\u2014enabling the claimant to assert a proportionate equitable interest or a lien over newly acquired property.<\/p>\n<p>Subrogation is available when the claimant\u2019s funds are used to discharge a debt secured by collateral. Subrogation allows the claimant to step into the shoes of the original lienholder, acquiring the discharged security interest and its associated priority.<\/p>\n<p>Remedies such as restitution in specie and disgorgement are also available. They allow claimants to recover a specific asset that was wrongfully obtained or profits derived from the wrongful use of the claimant\u2019s property.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the U.S. allows for in rem actions directed at a specific piece of property, which can be useful for obtaining jurisdiction where the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the owner.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the relevant limitation periods for civil asset recovery claims? Are there extensions or suspensions in cases involving fraud, concealment, or delayed discovery?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>For claims not pursuant to a federal statute, time limitations are set by the states. For common law claims:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>fraud: limitations periods vary but usually do not begin to run until the victim discovers or should have discovered the fraud<\/li>\n<li>conversion: usually 3 years<\/li>\n<li>unjust enrichment: varies by state (e.g. 3 years in California, 6 years in New York)<\/li>\n<li>fraudulent transfers: for states that have adopted UFTA\/UVTA, usually 4 years<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>RICO claims have a limitations period of 4 years from the date the victim discovered or should have discovered the underlying cause of action.<\/p>\n<p>For foreign judgment recognition, the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act of 2005 generally requires filing within the earlier of the foreign enforceability period or 15 years. (However, this limitation is often modified by the state\u2014e.g., 10 years in California; New York separately caps recognition if the foreign system has no limit). The Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act of 1962 does not provide for a time limit and states that have enacted it impose varying limitations periods.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the applicable standard of proof in civil asset recovery proceedings? How does this compare to the criminal standard, if relevant?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Civil asset recovery uses the preponderance of the evidence standard. Criminal proceedings use the higher burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where does the burden of proof lie, and are there any evidential presumptions or burden-shifting mechanisms (e.g. in cases involving unexplained wealth or transactions at an undervalue)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The claimant generally bears the burden of proving their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.<\/p>\n<p>While the U.S. does not recognize a presumption based on unexplained wealth, a court is permitted to draw adverse inferences from failures to produce records or comply with the discovery process. Additionally, once a claimant has made out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide affirmative defenses, which may include needing to justify a transaction or account for property.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What defences are available to respondents in civil asset recovery proceedings (e.g., change of position, limitation, laches, good-faith purchaser for value)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Lapse of the limitation period, where an action is filed outside the applicable period, is a complete defense. Specific limitations periods are discussed in Question 13.<\/p>\n<p>The defense of laches is an equitable defense which applies when a claimant unreasonably delayed in asserting their rights and the defendant suffered prejudice as a result.<\/p>\n<p>Change of position or detrimental reliance operates as a defense to unjust enrichment and restitutionary claims where the defendant, acting in good faith, materially changed position in reliance on the payment or transfer, such that restitution would be inequitable. However, because of the good faith requirement, this defense usually only applies in cases where a payment is induced by mistake or third-party fraud.<\/p>\n<p>The bona fide purchaser for value doctrine is well\u2011established in U.S. law. A defendant who acquired property for value, in good faith, and without actual or constructive notice of another\u2019s equitable or ownership interest is generally shielded from liability and may retain the assets. This defense also often passes to successors in title from a bona fide purchaser.<\/p>\n<p>A variety of other defenses may also be applicable depending on the facts of the case, such as estoppel, public policy considerations, and set\u2011off.<\/p>\n<p>For foreign judgment recognition, defenses are discussed in Question 8.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are third-party rights protected in civil recovery proceedings? What mechanisms exist for innocent parties to assert their interests in assets subject to recovery claims?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>FRCP 24 permits a third party to intervene in an action, such as a civil recovery action, to assert its rights to property or if its property interest may be impaired by the litigation. Similar processes are also available in state courts.<\/p>\n<p>As discussed in Question 16, there are also a variety of innocent owner defenses, such the bona fide purchaser for value doctrine, which protects an innocent owner\u2019s property interests.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, when a court is considering pre-judgement remedies pertaining to freezing assets, the court must consider the rights of third parties and whether the requested relief would unduly harm their interests.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, different types of co-ownership structures also provide protections. Tenancy by the entirety is a co-ownership type that is available in many states for married couples and is usually shielded from a creditor of only one spouse. More common forms of co-ownership, such as joint tenants or tenants in common, allow a creditor to reach jointly owned assets only up to the extent of the debtor\u2019s interest.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How does your jurisdiction classify cryptocurrencies and other digital assets for civil recovery purposes? Are they capable of being held on trust or subject to proprietary or equivalent claims?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As discussed in Question 2, the U.S. does not yet have a uniform statutory definition of \u201ccryptocurrency.\u201d However, at least in theory, digital assets are treated the same as other assets and are subject to traditional methods of asset recovery (e.g., injunctions, receivership, turnover of identified tokens or account credits). There is no rule that prohibits digital assets from being preserved in trust for a debtor, but litigants may encounter difficulties in attempting to recover digital assets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What interim relief mechanisms exist for freezing or preserving digital assets (e.g., access to private keys, hardware wallets, exchange-held accounts)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As discussed in Question 2, the recovery of digital assets relies on traditional remedies\u2014such as injunctions, attachment, receivership, and turnover\u2014adapted to apply to exchange accounts, digital wallets, and private keys. These remedies, however, encounter unique practical challenges. Such challenges include the rapid transferability of digital assets, the need for cooperation from digital\u2011asset exchanges, the use of privacy\u2011focused coins that conceal ownership and transaction data, crypto\u2011mixing services that combine assets from multiple users and obscure tracing efforts, and unhosted wallets that prevent third\u2011party access to the underlying assets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What disclosure and tracing, disclosure and investigative tools are available for identifying and following digital asset transactions, and what practical challenges arise in obtaining information from exchanges or service providers?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As discussed in Question 11, Claimants can combine legal process (party\/third\u2011party subpoenas, asset\u2011disclosure orders, post\u2011judgment discovery) with technological solutions like blockchain analytics (e.g. to address clustering, attribute assets to exchanges\/services, trace assets through swaps\/bridges) to locate and access digital assets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are legal costs allocated in civil asset recovery proceedings? What is the general rule on costs, and what exceptions apply?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The general U.S. rule is that each party bears its own legal fees. Legal fees may be recovered, however, if authorized by a statute, by a contract between the parties, or as a sanction for bad\u2011faith conduct. For other costs, courts have the general discretion to award taxable costs (e.g. filing fees, transcripts fees, certain witness fees) to the prevailing party.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are third-party funding, contingency fees, conditional fee arrangements, or damages-based agreements, or other alternative funding mechanisms available? What are the rules on security for costs?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The U.S. has a strong policy in favor of freedom to contract and allows most kinds of litigation funding structures. Contingency fees are broadly permitted (subject to professional responsibility rules for attorneys). Third\u2011party litigation funding is widely used. Insolvency trustees frequently employ contingency, funder, or creditor\u2011backed financing to pursue clawbacks. Security for court-related costs is discretionary and relatively uncommon outside specific contexts, but courts may require security where a statute or rule permits it or where equity demands it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How do insolvency proceedings interact with civil asset recovery actions? Can tracing or proprietary claims be pursued within insolvency, and what priority do such claims receive?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Once a debtor has filed for insolvency (called bankruptcy in the U.S.), civil actions against the debtor are subject to an automatic stay. The type of claim that a party brings determines how that claim is treated in the insolvency proceeding.<\/p>\n<p>The U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the UFTA\/UVTA also provide \u201cclawback\u201d provisions, which allow for certain transactions to be unwound. For example, if the claimant proves that certain transactions made by the debtor within the last two years were made to defraud creditors, then the bankruptcy trustee (the party appointed by the court to marshal and distribute the debtor\u2019s assets) must unwind the transaction and return the property.<\/p>\n<p>If a claimant proves a proprietary interest, the property is typically excluded from the bankruptcy estate altogether.<\/p>\n<p>For all other claims, such as common law claims for conversion or unjust enrichment, the claimant holds an unsecured claim and is treated the same as all other unsecured creditors pursuant to the priority system established by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Unsecured creditors are paid after secured creditors with the remaining assets.<\/p>\n<p>In cases where the insolvent entity is a securities brokerage, the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 allows for customers of the brokerage to be compensated before other creditors.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are claims for the recovery of misappropriated assets treated in the insolvency of the wrongdoer or intermediary? What is the relationship between civil recovery and insolvency clawback or avoidance provisions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As discussed above in Question 23, whether a claim is a proprietary or a personal damages claim dictates its treatment in insolvency.<\/p>\n<p>A proven proprietary claim generally excludes the assets from the insolvency estate and allows for full recovery, whereas a claim for damages is treated as an unsecured claim and is subject to higher priority claims.<\/p>\n<p>Tracing and following mechanisms, described in Question 12, are also available in insolvency proceedings to aid in the identification of assets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the key practical challenges facing practitioners in asset tracing and recovery (e.g., complex structures, offshore jurisdictions, banking secrecy, non-cooperative intermediaries)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>A long-standing challenge in asset recovery is complex ownership structures. When assets are buried amongst multi\u2011tier LLCs, limited partnerships (LPs), trusts, and series LLCs across multiple states\u2014combined with offshore entities in secrecy jurisdictions\u2014it may be difficult to identify beneficial ownership. Under U.S. law, trusts can be particularly opaque, especially discretionary and spendthrift trusts, where the beneficiary lacks a property interest that can be directly attached. While a trust can become reachable if it is proven to be a sham or an alter\u2011ego, this is a fact\u2011intensive inquiry with state-by-state variations. Furthermore, veil\u2011piercing, as discussed in Question 6, remains narrowly applied and often involves a higher burden of proof. The Corporate Transparency Act of 2020 (CTA) introduced federal beneficial\u2011ownership reporting, which helps to ease these challenges. However, as discussed further in Question 27, recent treatment of the CTA by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which was tasked with creating rules to effectuate the CTA, has eliminated the reporting requirement for wholly domestic companies, allowing sophisticated actors to exploit gaps.<\/p>\n<p>Banking secrecy can present obstacles. While U.S. financial institutions will comply with subpoenas and court orders, assets or records that lie abroad are more difficult to identify and obtain. For example, foreign banks not subject to U.S. jurisdiction may refuse compliance to avoid breaching local confidentiality laws, and courts are reluctant to compel disclosure that would expose respondents to foreign sanctions. Section 1782 does provide a tool for obtaining U.S.\u2011based evidence for foreign proceedings, but it does not guarantee cooperation from offshore entities with no U.S. presence.<\/p>\n<p>It is also difficult to bring claims against banks for failing to prevent fraud. U.S. courts have been reluctant to recognize broad duties beyond those explicitly provided by statute or contract. Common\u2011law negligence claims typically fail because banks do not owe a general duty to detect or prevent fraud against their customers. Uniform Commercial Code Article 4A provides some relief for misdirected wire transfers, but its protections are limited and can be contractually modified.<\/p>\n<p>Practically, expense and delay may be the most prevalent issues in asset recovery, which can be exacerbated by advances in technology. Multi\u2011jurisdictional litigation, forensic accounting, and offshore discovery drive up the complexity and costs of recovery. Third\u2011party litigation funders can help to ease this burden; however, litigation funders are generally selective and focus on cases involving significant potential recoveries. Asset dissipation is particularly affected by technology and the speed at which assets can be moved. Existing remedies in the U.S., such as temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and prejudgment attachments, can be difficult to obtain and have been curtailed by the Grupo Mexicano decision discussed in Question 10.<\/p>\n<p>Most of these challenges are even more acute where digital assets are concerned. Identifying account holders and tracing flows across exchanges, mixers, privacy\u2011enhanced cryptocurrencies, and decentralized finance protocols often requires sophisticated and expensive blockchain analytics. While some larger exchanges cooperate readily under subpoena, others, particularly those offshore, do not and may require parallel Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty processes that move slowly. With digital assets, delay is especially damaging\u2014U.S. proceedings can take years, while digital assets can be moved or obfuscated in minutes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What strategic considerations arise when choosing between different civil causes of action or pursuing parallel proceedings? Can civil proceedings be stayed pending related criminal or regulatory actions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>First and foremost, a claimant\u2019s causes of action are likely to be limited by the facts of the case. In the U.S., it is generally permissible to bring a wide variety of claims, some of which may be pleaded in the alternative, in order to preserve all possible claims. While claims may not be frivolous, they need not have a high likelihood of success to be brought.<\/p>\n<p>The location in which a litigant chooses to bring a proceeding is also of particular importance in the U.S. because, even in federal court, the laws of the state in which an action is brought are likely to affect the course the case takes. Further, reaching assets outside of the jurisdiction may be time-consuming and costly. It is often prudent to bring asset recovery actions in the state where the claimant believes the majority of the defendant\u2019s assets are located. Like choosing a location, the decision to bring a case in federal or state court can influence the procedural tools available.<\/p>\n<p>As discussed in Questions 23 and 24, another important strategic choice is whether to bring proprietary or personal claims. Proprietary relief can avoid issues with priority in insolvency, whereas personal money judgments face the risk of losing out to higher priority claims. However, personal money judgements benefit from additional causes of action and may be the only causes of action available depending on the facts of the case.<\/p>\n<p>While civil actions parallel to criminal actions or regulatory actions are generally permitted, they do not occur often. Civil actions are often stayed in favor of the criminal or regulatory proceedings and, for criminal proceedings in particular, issues often arise with rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which may limit the statements a defendant is required to make prior to the conclusion of the criminal proceeding. However, even if a criminal or regulatory proceeding is ongoing, this will not prevent time limitations from lapsing, and so civil litigants should still file timely to avoid limitations pitfalls and coordinate with prosecutors to protect recovery prospects.<\/p>\n<p>Criminal proceedings are also not a substitute for civil proceedings. If the debtor is ordered to pay restitution in the criminal case, there is no guarantee that victims will be fully compensated or receive as much as they would through civil litigation. Additionally, the burden of proof is lower in a civil proceeding than a criminal proceeding.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What significant recent cases, reforms, or emerging trends have affected asset recovery practice (including developments in sanctions regimes, beneficial ownership transparency, AML rules, or cross-border enforcement)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Recent U.S. asset\u2011recovery practice has been shaped by major shifts in sanctions policy, beneficial\u2011ownership transparency, digital\u2011asset enforcement, and cross\u2011border judgment strategies.<\/p>\n<p>Under the Trump Administration, U.S. sanctions policy has been aggressively expanded to target Iran, transnational crime, and global evasion networks, while significantly reducing new actions against Russia until late 2025, when major Russian energy companies were designated. Enforcement activity has increased, with higher\u2011value penalties, intensified scrutiny of intermediaries, and a willingness to impose liability for indirect dealings with sanctioned persons\u2014prioritizing substance over corporate formalities and emphasizing risks to digital\u2011asset businesses and non\u2011bank financial institutions. Ongoing sanctions actions in early 2026 show continued expansion and rapid sanctions\u2011list updates across Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and cyber\u2011related programs.<\/p>\n<p>Beneficial\u2011ownership transparency in the U.S. has recently undergone substantial changes. The Corporate Transparency Act of 2020 (CTA) introduced federal beneficial\u2011ownership reporting to assist in asset recovery efforts. However, FinCEN recently issued an interim final rule which eliminated beneficial owner information reporting obligations for domestic U.S. entities and U.S. persons and restricted mandatory reporting to certain foreign\u2011formed entities registered to do business in the U.S. This means that while asset recovery from foreign companies doing business in the U.S. may be easier, challenges remain for complex corporate entities wholly in the U.S.<\/p>\n<p>Anti-money laundering has undergone changes under the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA), key features of which include expanded rewards and protections for whistleblowers and introduction of new Bank Secrecy Act violations and increased penalties. Additionally, the AMLA expanded the Bank Secrecy Act\u2019s regulatory scope to include businesses that provide services involving \u201cvalue that substitutes for currency,\u201d enabling future regulation over digital assets.<\/p>\n<p>Cross\u2011border asset recovery has been the subject of several recent U.S. Supreme Court cases. In Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, 599 U.S. 533 (2023), the Supreme Court held that a non\u2011resident of the U.S. can bring civil RICO actions where the circumstances sufficiently ground the injury in the U.S. There, the Court held allegations of asset concealment to thwart enforcement of a California judgment were sufficient to constitute a domestic injury. Yegiazaryan clarified a circuit split and bolstered RICO as a tool for cross\u2011border asset recovery.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court also recently heard arguments (February 23, 2026) in two cases involving the Helms-Burton Act and the FSIA, Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. CIMEX S.A. The Havana Docks case centers on the whether the Helms-Burton Act, which makes companies liable for trafficking in property confiscated by the Cuban government that was owned by U.S. entities, extends to property interests that have expired as a matter of domestic property law. The Exxon case centers on whether the Helms-Burton Act operates independently of the FSIA, such that a plaintiff need not satisfy the FSIA\u2019s exceptions to sovereign immunity in order to bring an action against an agency or instrumentality of the Cuban government.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the D.C. Circuit, in Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Dev. Corp., 717 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2024), recently held that it lacked subject\u2011matter jurisdiction to enforce a Zambian judgment confirming an arbitral award against Zimbabwe because neither the FSIA arbitration exception nor the implied\u2011waiver exception applied. It concluded that the arbitration exception does not cover actions to domesticate foreign court judgments and that signing a treaty governing arbitral awards is not enough to show an intent to waive immunity for foreign judicial judgments.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">7813<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/137190","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}