Report of the Public Inquiry into the 2022 Public Order Emergency, Volume 5: Policy Papers

The injunction targeted the project owners of the crowdfunding campaigns, in particular NPO “Freedom 2022 Human Rights and Freedoms.” With respect to the crowdfunding platforms, the effects of the order are less clear. [...] In the order, GFM and GSG are identified and referred to as intermediaries potentially holding funds for the defendants.27 In his reasons, however, the judge adds that the funds not yet released by the crowdfunding platform to the organizers or beneficiaries are not subject to the injunction.28 However, based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff, the judge considers that the funds raised thr. [...] I indicated that I did not view 29 The judge states: “I am satisfied by the evidence that the funds, whether they are in the form of currency or cryptocurrency, are now legally in the possession, power and control of the defendants who are the target of the motion (referred to in the motion material as the “Mareva Defendants”). [...] Is it the project owner, or is it the campaign’s beneficiary? If the project owner is considered the donee, this person can use the funds as they wish, without having to comply with the terms of the campaign.64 In fact, donors have very limited recourse for nullity or revocation of the donation.65 This also means that that funds could be seized by the project owner’s creditors. [...] Instead, it would be a gift to the project owner or to the beneficiary of the donations.72 This solution is surely linked to the structure adopted by GFM for donation payments, wherein project owners have the choice of receiving the funds themselves, or having them sent directly to the beneficiary.