Cohn v. Popescu
1:24-cv-00337
E.D. Tex.May 29, 2025Background:
- Plaintiff Bruce Cohn alleges he was defrauded out of over $2.4 million after being lured into investing via a fake cryptocurrency platform (TrustHFTwallet) by a defendant met on a dating website.
- The scam followed a format known as a “pig-butchering scam,” with fake profits displayed in Cohn’s account and withdrawal of funds contingent on further deposits.
- Cohn submitted evidence—including investigator declarations and blockchain tracing—to show that the assets were stolen and remain traceable at certain cryptocurrency addresses.
- Cohn sought an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) to freeze assets (specifically USDC cryptocurrency) at identified blockchain addresses to prevent dissipation before defendants could be notified.
- The court reviewed the motion and found Cohn satisfied both the procedural and substantive requirements for an ex parte TRO, citing the unique risks of asset dissipation in crypto fraud cases.
- The TRO was granted, restraining defendants (and all involved parties with notice) from transferring or disturbing the assets for 14 days, with no bond required from the plaintiff.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex parte TRO (procedural requirements, notice) | Immediate risk of irreparable harm; notice would risk asset flight | Not addressed | Requirements met; ex parte TRO justified |
| Substantive standard for TRO | Likelihood of success on claims, irreparable harm, public interest | Not addressed | All elements satisfied, TRO granted |
| Freezing of cryptocurrency assets | Assets are traceable, defendants likely to dissipate if notified | Not addressed | Asset freeze warranted |
| Bond requirement for TRO | No bond should be required under the circumstances | Not addressed | No bond required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Vuitton et Fils S.A., 606 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1979) (Ex parte orders justified where notice would thwart effective relief)
- First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 1993) (Ex parte order proper if adverse party likely to dissipate assets)
- Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2017) (Standard for TRO and preliminary injunctions)