Sergei Sachkov files a defence only after enforcement against a Canadian bank account holding more than $430,000: he retained counsel, filed a Statement of Defence, and shortly afterward moved to set aside the default judgment. Liability default and a damages assessment of $1,744,711 were already on the record.
Related: Damages award · Four Critical Failures · Reply to Sachkov’s Defence
Both the Motion, as well as the Statement of Defence are replete with provable falsehoods that quickly fell apart and were recanted during a later discovery session. He claims he assumed the lawsuit was fake, but he never took any measures to determine whether it was valid or not.
The 24 March 2023 Defence
Read Sergei’s Statement of Defence here:
Read Sergei’s Notice of Motion here:
Read Sergei’s Motion Record here:
Place in the Equibit Lawsuit
This is the appearance that follows the December 2022 damages assessment and precedes Justice Merritt’s set-aside. The Reply is 27 October 2023. The defects in the set-aside endorsement are Four Critical Failures.
Sergei Sachkov served as Equibit’s lead core protocol developer. His abrupt departure and the simultaneous disappearance of key intellectual property dealt a severe blow to the company at a critical time. For years afterward, he remained unresponsive to service attempts, leading to default judgments on both liability and damages.
His eventual appearance in the proceedings — long after default judgments had been entered — raises important procedural and substantive questions. It demonstrates that even after extended periods of non-participation, individuals can still attempt to re-enter the litigation process.
Notably, Sachkov had no assets in his name other than a bank account, which we seized with over $430,000 in it. He had no savings or other accounts, no mutual funds, brokerage, or any other financial account at other institutions. That amount of cash raises serious red flags over his financial activities over the relevant time frame.
The Broader Pattern
The Equibit case has been characterized by delay, evasion, and institutional resistance. The fact that a key individual implicated in the company’s destruction took years to formally appear in court, while exhibiting suspicious financial activity, fits the larger pattern documented throughout this site.
For any citizen who believes in procedural fairness and the rule of law, these timelines and circumstances are concerning. When those accused of harming a Canadian technology company can avoid meaningful participation for years — while maintaining questionable financial arrangements — it undermines public confidence that the justice system can deliver timely and meaningful accountability.
Moving Forward
The public documentation campaign at equibitlawsuit.com exists to ensure these developments remain transparent and accessible. Every filing, every judgment, and every response (or lack thereof) becomes part of the permanent record.
The full Factum of Equibit Group — the comprehensive evidentiary synthesis of the entire case — continues to advance and will be released in due course.
