Husband accused of his wife stealing 2,000-plus bitcoins! Judge: the plaintiff has a very high chance of winning

The High Court of England and Wales recently heard a high-value Bitcoin theft case remotely. The plaintiff Ping Fai Yuen accused his estranged wife Fun Yung Li of stealing 2,323 Bitcoins, which were stored in a Trezor hardware wallet, in 2023, alleging that she used a home surveillance camera (CCTV) to secretly record the recovery phrase and access password, then transferred the assets in batches. The Bitcoin in question was reportedly valued at approximately $176 million at the time of reporting.
Plaintiff: Wife and her sister secretly recorded recovery phrase and transferred Bitcoin
Ping Fai Yuen and Fun Yung Li were originally married, and the dispute arose during the divorce proceedings. In early July 2023, Ping’s eldest daughter revealed to him that her mother was planning to seize his Bitcoins, prompting Ping to install recording devices to listen in. The recordings from July 29 and 31 became key evidence, clearly capturing Fun Yung Li discussing with her sister: “The Bitcoin has been transferred to me,” “Take it first,” “Be careful, he can’t catch us,” “Use a second wallet,” “Find a hacker,” among other conversations, and mentioning how to avoid bank and police scrutiny regarding large sums of money.

According to the judgment issued by the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England on March 10, 2026, court documents show that the plaintiff claims the first defendant Fun Yung Li and the second defendant Lai Yung Li were involved in “exfiltrating” the Bitcoin, asserting that the assets were transferred to multiple addresses. The plaintiff’s side claims these Bitcoins were sent to 71 different addresses. The court documents also recorded summaries of the recorded conversations presented by the plaintiff, including discussions by the defendants on how to handle large sums of money and avoid raising the attention of banks or police. The judgment also mentioned that when the defendants’ residence was searched, the police seized what the judge referred to as “the equipment necessary for exfiltrating Bitcoin.”
Police had arrested the wife, but no further action has been taken yet
On August 2, 2023, Bitcoin was suddenly transferred out of Ping’s cold wallet, with no further transaction records thereafter. After Ping reported it to the police, they arrested Fun Yung Li on December 23 and discovered 10 cold wallets (including Trezor), 5 sets of seeds, and several luxury watches at her residence. The police successfully unlocked 4 of the wallets, 3 of which were confirmed to belong to Ping. The law enforcement agency later stated that “there is insufficient evidence,” and that no further action would be taken unless new evidence emerged.
The case background adds further drama. In September 2024, Ping got into a physical altercation with his wife after discovering that the Bitcoin had been transferred, and was subsequently charged with “causing actual bodily harm” and two counts of common assault, pleading guilty on September 13, 2024, and serving a sentence. Ping has since moved to Thailand, while Fun Yung Li resides in Hong Kong. The defendant Fun Yung Li submitted only a brief denial of “not knowing” in the court documents and did not attend the hearing, with her lawyer only appearing as an observer. Her sister Lai Yung Li has completely evaded service and has not formally responded to the case.
Key points of the court ruling: Some claims were dismissed
On March 10, 2026, Judge Cotter issued a ruling (Case No.: KB-2025-004313, Yuen v Li [2026] EWHC 532 (KB)):

• High probability of success: “The evidence is very damning against the defendants. The plaintiff was warned in advance by his daughter, the recorded content is extremely damaging, and equipment necessary for transferring Bitcoin was found at the defendants’ residence.”
• Asset freeze order maintained: The Bitcoin is still frozen at 71 addresses, and the court ordered the defendants not to transfer or dispose of them.
• Some claims were dismissed: Traditional “conversion” and “trespass to goods” do not apply to intangible assets such as Bitcoin and have been removed; however, the plaintiff may amend the complaint within 7 days to continue pursuing claims of “unjust enrichment,” “breach of confidentiality obligations,” and “loss caused by unlawful means.”
• Other rulings: The request by the defendants for the plaintiff to provide security for legal costs was dismissed, and the court agreed to notify the defendants’ sister by alternative means, advising to arrange for a single joint cryptocurrency tracking expert and a formal hearing as soon as possible.

Judge: The plaintiff has a very high probability of success! Suggests an early hearing
In this procedural ruling, Judge Cotter stated that based on the current evidence, the plaintiff has a “very high probability of success” in proving his claims. The judge pointed out that the recorded content is “extremely damaging,” and the discovery of relevant equipment at the first defendant’s residence also strengthens the plaintiff’s case.
“In my judgment, the plaintiff has demonstrated a very high likelihood of success.” Judge Cotter also added, “The evidence indicates that he had been informed of the first defendant’s intentions, the recordings are clear and indisputable, and the necessary equipment for stealing Bitcoin was found during the search of the first defendant’s residence.”
Paragraph 102 of the judgment states that the first defendant had multiple opportunities to present her case but chose not to do so. The fact that the Bitcoin still remains at those transferred addresses aligns with the plaintiff’s narrative, and based on these factors, the judge believes the plaintiff has a high chance of succeeding in the substantive hearing.