Victor Cattermole struck gold when a High Court clerk innocently sent him a USB drive listing customers of hacked Christchurch cryptocurrency exchange, Cryptopia Ltd. Company liquidators failed in their application to have Cattermole convicted for contempt of court, alleging Cattermole’s subsequent contact with Cryptopia customers was disrupting liquidation procedures.
Mr Cattermole is the self-styled ‘chairman of the crown council’ and ‘prince of the principality’ of the Cogito Metaverse. Its earthly representation appears to be a Montengrin-based trust.
Cryptopia liquidators Grant Thornton allege Mr Cattermole used data from the USB drive to contact Cryptopia customers offering a swap: handing over their rights to a payout in the liquidation in return for ‘cog,’ said to be a digital currency used in Cogito’s metaverse.
Liquidators received multiple enquiries from Cryptopia customers questioning what was going on, with some under the mistaken impression this was an offer made by the liquidators direct.
Mr Cattermole came into possession of the USB data in 2020, one year after Cryptopia went into liquidation, following the loss of some thirty million dollars by value in cryptocurrency holdings at the hand of unknown hackers.
Data on a USB drive had been filed in court by the liquidators, part of a routine application for directions as to how the Cryptopia liquidation should proceed.
This data was released to Mr Cattermole at his request, with court registry staff thinking he was party to the liquidators’ application and entitled to the information.
It took liquidators some time to discover Mr Cattermole had access to sensitive liquidation data listing Cryptopia customers and their digital holdings.
In October 2020, the High Court ordered Mr Cattermole to disclose what information he had, where it was stored, how he had used it, and whether any copies had been provided to third parties. He was less than forthcoming in his response.
Further court applications sought to stop Mr Cattermole from approaching Cryptopia customers.
Multiple applications were made to have Mr Cattermole held in contempt of court for failing to fully comply with court orders.
Contempt of court is treated as a criminal offence. Proof is required beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr Cattermole said he is not the only person involved in Cogito. He could not be held responsible for the actions of others supposedly acting in breach of court orders, he said.
Justice McHerron ruled there were two instances where Mr Cattermole was clearly in contempt of court: first, when he did not make full disclosure about emailing data offshore in late 2020 to a Mr Serafimov and a Mr Chaudry; and second, failing to disclose the existence of relevant emails.
No penalty was imposed. The information Mr Cattermole was supposed to disclose, but did not, was later identified by Cryptopia liquidators from other sources.
Contempt of Court Act excuses failures to comply with court orders where compliance has been satisfied by other means.
Ruscoe v. Cattermole – High Court (18.12.24)
25.053