Type of refusal
Frozen funds with a counterparty in Malta
This is a frozen-funds matter. Money sits with a Maltese entity, and the platform is not releasing it. Before any procedural step, three things get fixed first: who legally holds the account, what a foreign judgment would need to cross into Malta, and what evidence to preserve now. How a Maltese claim proceeds depends on the entity, the contract and the decision sought, and is worked out against the file, not set out here, as with any frozen-funds case.
Who is actually on the other side
The account sits with an entity registered in Malta, most likely a private limited company or a licensed payment or crypto asset service provider. Malta's public company register shows directors, shareholders, registered address and filing history for any such entity, and licensing details can sit in a separate register if the provider is regulated. A licence number does not confirm where client funds are actually held. None of this tells you who currently controls the wallet or bank account holding your money. It tells you who is legally answerable, on paper, for whatever entity you signed the agreement with, which is the starting point checked against Malta as a jurisdiction before anything else.
What to secure before the counterparty reacts
Collect what will not survive on its own. Save the exact legal entity name used in your agreement, not the brand name shown in the app. Preserve onboarding records, KYC correspondence, full transaction and wallet history, and every statement the platform made about the freeze, including in-app messages that can be edited or removed later. If a written demand has not gone out yet, it is worth reading what a written demand can and cannot do on its own before sending one. Screenshot balances now, since dashboards change or disappear. Keep delivery proof for anything you send. None of this is a court filing; it is the evidence a claim would later need, and the same collection applies whether one wallet or a wider pattern of frozen crypto accounts is involved, and whether the platform sits inside a broader frozen-accounts matter.
Where a judgment would have to be enforced
If a judgment against the Maltese entity comes from another EU member state, Malta's place in the EU civil justice area means that judgment moves without a fresh exequatur proceeding, subject to the standard grounds a member state can still raise against recognition. If the judgment originates outside the EU, Malta is bound by the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention through the EU's accession, which took effect on 29 August 2022, with the Convention entering into force for Malta on 1 September 2023; whether it covers a given judgment depends on where and how that judgment was obtained. Documents produced abroad for use in Malta generally need legalisation, and Malta has applied the Apostille Convention since 3 March 1968, which substitutes a single certificate for full legalisation. Which of these routes fits, and what a Maltese court does procedurally with an incoming decision, is not covered here; it depends on the originating jurisdiction and the type of decision, and the reverse direction, from Malta into the UK, runs on a separate enforcement route rather than the same one described for enforcement into Malta. This firm does not work on a success-fee-only basis, and its registration can be checked through the public registry check described separately.