UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-22907-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

RANGAN BANDYOPADHYAY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEFENDANT 1, also known as Suxia Obei, 

also known as Sasha, and JOHN DOES 1-20, 

Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING ALTERNATE SERVICE OF 

PROCESS ON FOREIGN DEFENDANTS PURSUAN TO RULE 4(f)(3)

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Authorizing Alternate 

Service of Process on Foreign Defendants Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), 

ECF No. [12] (“Motion”). The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the record in this case, 

the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is 

granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Rangan Bandyopadhyay, filed a Complaint asserting various claims, including 

for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1961-1968, conversion, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy, related to Defendants’ alleged theft 

of cryptocurrency from Plaintiff of an approximate value of $958,648.41 pursuant to a 

sophisticated global internet cryptocurrency fraud and conversion scheme. See ECF No. [1]. In 

support of the Motion, Plaintiff has presented the Declaration of an investigator confirming 

Plaintiff tracked the stolen cryptocurrency to certain electronic cryptocurrency wallets and 

Case 1:22-cv-22907-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 1 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-22907-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

cryptocurrency exchange accounts (“Defendants’ Crypto Wallets”). See Declaration of Plaintiff’s 

investigator Rodrigo M. Barbara, ECF No. [12-2] (“Investigator Decl.”) at ¶ 7. Plaintiff asserts

that Defendants operate via the Internet and utilize crypto blockchain ledger technology, i.e., 

electronic means, as reliable forms of contact. See Declaration of Agustin M. Barbara, ECF No. 

[12-3] (“Barbara Decl.”) at ¶¶ 6-10; see also Declaration of Plaintiff Rangan Bandyopadhyay, ECF 

No. [12-1] (“Plaintiff’s Decl.”). at ¶ 9-10. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants are residents of 

the People’s Republic of China. See Plaintiff’s Decl. at ¶ 6-8. 

Plaintiff has created a non-fungible token (“Plaintiff’s NFT”) containing (a) a notice of this 

action with Summons language, and (b) a hyperlink to Plaintiff’s website located at the Uniform 

Resource Locator (URL): (https://uscourtservice.com/22907), and a service website (“Plaintiff’s 

Website”). See Barbara Decl. at ¶¶ 3-4, Exhibits “A” and “B.” Plaintiff’s Website also contains a 

notice of this action, with hyperlinks to the Summons, Complaint, and all filings and orders in this 

action. 

In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to send Plaintiff’s NFT to the blockchain (crypto 

ledger) addresses of Defendants’ Crypto Wallets and to serve Defendants via publication on 

Plaintiff’s Website.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The central purpose of service of process is “to supply notice of the pendency of a legal 

action, in a manner and at a time that affords the defendant a fair opportunity to answer the 

complaint and present defenses and objections.” Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 672

(1996). Rule 4(f) states in pertinent part as follows:

Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an 

incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served at a 

place not within any judicial district of the United States:

Case 1:22-cv-22907-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 2 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-22907-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated 

to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service 

Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;

(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement 

allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably 

calculated to give notice:

(A) as prescribed by the foreign country’s law for service in that country in 

an action in its courts of general jurisdiction;

(B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter 

of request; or

(C) unless prohibited by the foreign country’s law, by:

. . .

(ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the 

individual and that requires a signed receipt; or

(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court 

orders.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f).

Rule 4(f)(3) allows a district court to order an alternate method for service to be effected 

upon foreign defendants, provided that it is not prohibited by international agreement, and is 

reasonably calculated to give notice to the defendants. See Brookshire Bros. v. Chiquita Brands 

Int’l, Inc., No. 05-CIV-21962, 2007 WL 1577771, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2007) (“[D]istrict 

courts have found broad discretion under Rule 4(f)(3) to authorize other methods of service that 

are consistent with due process and are not prohibited by international agreements.”) (citing 

Prewitt Enters., Inc. v. Org. of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 353 F.3d 916, 921, 927 (11th Cir. 

2003)); Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002). The plain 

language of Rule 4(f)(3) reflects that the decision to issue an order allowing alternate means of 

service lies within the discretion of the district court.

Rule 4(f)(3) was “adopted in order to provide flexibility and discretion to the federal courts 

Case 1:22-cv-22907-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 3 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-22907-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

in dealing with questions of alternative methods of service of process in foreign countries.” In re 

Int’l Telemedia Assoc., Inc., 245 B.R. 713 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000). What constitutes appropriate 

service varies depending on the circumstances of the case and turns on the court’s determination 

of whether the alternative method is reasonably calculated to apprise the parties of the pendency 

of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Philip Morris USA, Inc. 

v. Veles Ltd., No. 06 CV 2988 (GBD), 2007 WL 725412, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2007).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests that the Court permit him to serve Defendants via NFT to their Crypto 

Wallets and by posting on a specifically created website. Service by NFT transfer and via posting 

on a designated website is not prohibited under international agreement. Although the United 

States and China are signatories to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Extra-Judicial 

Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361 (“Hague 

Convention”), the Hague Convention does not specifically preclude service of process via NFT or 

by posting on a designated website. 

Where a signatory nation has objected to the alternative means of service provided by the 

Hague Convention, that objection is expressly limited to those means and does not represent an 

objection to other forms of service, such as e-mail or website posting. Stat Med. Devices, Inc. v. 

HTL-Strefa, Inc., No. 15-20590-CIV, 2015 WL 5320947, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2015) (noting 

that an objection to the alternative forms of service set forth in the Hague Convention is limited to 

the specific forms of service objected to). A court acting under Rule 4(f)(3), therefore, remains 

free to order alternative means of service where a signatory nation has not expressly objected to 

those means. See Gurung v. Malhotra, 279 F.R.D. 215, 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). China has not 

specifically objected to service via NFT or posting on a website. See ECF No. [12-3].

Case 1:22-cv-22907-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 4 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-22907-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5

Further, NFT and posting on a designated website are reasonably calculated to give notice 

to Defendants. Indeed, courts regularly permit service by e-mail and website posting. See, e.g.

Chanel, Inc. v. Zhixian, No. 10-CV-60585, 2010 WL 1740695, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2010) 

(authorizing service by e-mail); Bialik v. Individuals Identified on Schedule “A,” No. 22-cv-6142-

BLOOM/Valle, 2022 WL 4268594, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2022) (same); Chanel, Inc. v. 

Individual, P’ship, or Unincorporated Assoc., No. 17-6241-CIV-MOORE, 2017 WL 8794733, at 

*4-5 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2017) (permitting service by website publication); Cassegrain v. 

bagsoutlet.us, No. 18-cv-62933-BLOOM/Valle, 2018 WL 10582119, at *1-2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 

2018) (same). In addition, Plaintiff cites LCX AG v. John Doe Nos. 1-25, No. 154644/2022 (Sup. 

Ct. N.Y. Co. – Filed 06/01/2022), where at least one court has authorized alternate service by NFT 

and website posting.

Here, Defendants conducted their alleged scheme using electronic means over the Internet 

and using cryptocurrency blockchain ledger technology. Plaintiff shows that NFT and website 

posting are likely to reach Defendants. See Rio Props. Inc., 284 F.3d at 1017-18. Plaintiff therefore 

demonstrates good cause as to why leave should be granted to allow service of the summonses, 

Complaint, all filings and discovery in this case on Defendants via NFT and posting on Plaintiff’s 

designated website.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [12], is 

GRANTED as follows: 

1. Plaintiff shall serve the summonses, Complaint, and all filings and discovery in this 

case upon Defendants via transfer of Plaintiff’s NFT to Defendants’ Crypto 

Case 1:22-cv-22907-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 5 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-22907-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

6 

Wallets, which provides notice of this action and directs Defendants to Plaintiff’s 

Website; and, 

2. Plaintiff shall serve the summonses, Complaint, and all filings and discovery in this 

case upon Defendants via website publication, by posting a copy of the same on 

Plaintiff’s designated service notice website appearing at the following URL: 

(https://uscourtservice.com/22907).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 22, 2022. 

_____ ___________________________ 

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record 

Case 1:22-cv-22907-BB Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 6 of 6