Lawsuit: Adjourned KukkiNekko v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 5

Verdict

---

I. Summary of Case​

Plaintiff (KukkiNekko) alleges that they were defrauded by Defendant (Zombie_Bro_) in the amount of $14,000. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant created fake tokens for Plaintiff's casino, that Plaintiff accepted the tokens and paid out $14,000 on the mistaken belief that the tokens were real, and that Defendant did not volunteer that information to the Plaintiff at any point relevant to this case.

Defendant denies all factual allegations except for affirming that the Defendant created the tokens and neither affirming nor denying whether or not the Plaintiff thought the tokens were real. Defendant raises defenses of insufficient evidence, mistaken identity, inability of citizens to prosecute crimes, and lack-of-outrageousness.

This is a civil case seeking damages Plaintiff alleges were caused by a violation of the Criminal Code Act, and this Court draws conclusions herein regarding civil liability. As to criminal liability itself, "the court will not make any ruling" (Lucaaasserole v. Naezaratheus et al. [2025] FCR 50).

II. Factual Analysis​

No witness testimony was presented in this case. Two exhibits have been stricken (Exhibit P-001 and P-002), and thus are not considered in the Court's verdict. The Court has considered the evidence-in-case, filings by both parties, and previous court decisions in this case's factual analysis.

II.A "Christophern Blackwood", "Zombian Blackwood", and Defendant Zombie_Bro_ are all the same person​

It is clear from Exhibit P-010 that "Zombian Blackwood" is the Defendant, Zombie_Bro_. The more difficult question is whether 'Christophern Blackwood' is the same person as the Defendant.

Defense has represented that "Defendant is not Christophern Blackwood, they are Zombie_Bro_" (Answer, Section II(5)), and that the funds transferred in Exhibits P-003 and P-004 "went to Christophern Blackwood, not Zombie_Bro_" (Defense's Opening Statement).

We must now examine the evidence-in-case and filings to see whether, on a balance of probabilities, "Christophern Blackwood" is the same person as these two. This information need not come from a single piece of evidence alone, but may come from a broader examination of the evidentiary record (see: Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18, Verdict, Section II.I.I).

Exhibit P-006 shows "Christophern Blackwood" as having stated "its bugged". This came after a certain "Kukki The creator" stated "payout" and "sell em upstairs pls" in local chat. Defense admits that "[t]he Defendant suggested the chestshop malfunctioned not that the tokens were authentic" (Defense Closing Statement). The Court, putting these two together, sees this as evidence in support of identifying Christophern Blackwood with the Defendant. The Plaintiff paid $14,000 to Christophern Blackwood (Compl., Exhibits P-003 and P-004), which is equal to the total face value of the tokens in Exhibit P-005 ($500 times 28 equals $14,000). Defendant admits to having created the tokens (Answer, Section I(1)).

Exhibit P-010 shows "Zombian Blackwood" saying, unprompted, "kukki hi \ remember me \ your money is gone btw". In Exhibit P-007, "You" (who has the same face as "Kukki the Creator" in Exhibit P-006) asked Zombian Blackwood "the money you got by cashing out your chips". Zombian Blackwood responds "yeah" in the affirmative. Zombian Blackwood responds with remorse to the comment "why so much" made by "You", and subsequently wrote "im basically admitting but your moneys gone".

There are a few gaps in the record. Screenshot cropping does obscure, to some extent, the greater context. It also prevents the Court from knowing, with certainty, the order in which the various messages were sent. Nor was any witness called to corroborate the message order.

But the gaps cut against the identification of "Christophern Blackwood" with the Defendant less than the evidence points towards the two being the same person. On balance of probabilities, therefore, this Court finds that the "Christophern Blackwood" in the evidence-in-case is the same person as the Defendant.

II.B Defendant Zombie_Bro_ created 28 counterfeit $500 tokens​

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "created fraudulent tokens for the Plaintiff’s casino" (Compl., factual allegations No. 1 and No. 2). In reviewing evidentiary support, Plaintiff provided a screenshot of 28 lime dye named "Kukki's 500$" and signed by "Zombie_Bro_" (Compl., Exhibit P-005). Defendant affirms "that Defendant created the tokens" (Answer, Section I(1)), but denies that the tokens were intended to be used fraudulently (ibid) and argues that the Defendant "made no affirmative representation that these were official casino tokens" (Defense Closing Statement). As such, the Court analyzes whether or not these tokens were created as counterfeits for the Plaintiff's casino.

The Court's analysis is as follows:

II.B.1 Defendant created 28 tokens titled "Kukki's 500$"​

This part is straightforward. Exhibit P-005 shows signed lime dye with a title of "Kukki's 500$". Defendant admits to having created the tokens (Answer, Section I(1)). The Court sees no reason to doubt this affirmation, and concludes that Zombie_Bro_ created the tokens in Exhibit P-005.

II.B.2 The Court concludes, on balance of probabilities, that the tokens in Exhibit P-005 are counterfeit gaming chips​

What is more complicated is tying these tokens to a casino based on the evidence-in-case. No witness testimony was provided walking the Court through the existence of a casino owned by the Plaintiff, as no witness testimony was presented. Plaintiff did not present the Court with images of casino machines, chip-cashing equipment, nor legitimate chips.

We thus turn to an examination of the admissions by the Defense in the answer, as well as other evidence-in-case that may indirectly reflect on this point.

The first factual allegation of the Plaintiff ("The Defendant created fraudulent tokens for the Plaintiff’s casino") directly alleges that the tokens were (1) created by the Defendant, (2) fraudulent, and (3) created "for the Plaintiff's casino". The answer to that allegation by the defense (Answer, Section I(1), "AFFIRM that Defendant created the tokens; DENY that Defendant intended to use them for fraudulent purposes") affirms (1), denies (2), but does not directly address the portion of the allegation "for Plaintiff's casino". No general denial saver clause (e.g. "the defense denies all factual allegations except those expressly affirmed herein") is present.

What is the Court to infer from this? Is it that the defense saw two substantial questions (e.g. "The Defendant created fraudulent tokens" and "The Defendant created... tokens for the Plaintiff’s casino")? Or is it merely that the Defendant omitted information that ought to have been there?

This Court finds that the Defendant's answer simply omitted information pertaining to the question of whether the tokens were created "for the Plaintiff's casino". The Plaintiff did have remedies available under Rule 3.6 (Default Judgement, Failure to Submit Defense), which requires that "[d]efendants must amend any answer to have affirmations or denials on all facts". But the presiding judicial officer cannot grant default judgement sua sponte under that rule; "[f]ailure to include the necessary information is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant". This Court sees no such request, so default judgement cannot be granted at this time under Rule 3.6.

We now know that no direct evidence of the alleged casino's existence is in-case, and we see no affirmation from the defense as to whether or not the tokens were created for the Plaintiff's casino. This Court next turns to whether or not indirect evidence would meet the burden of proof (c.f. In re [2025] FCR 123 | [2026] SCR 5, Dicta, "Circumstantial evidence, by its very nature, is evidence that is implicit. The implications derived from circumstantial evidence may very well prove controlling and convincing").

Turning to indirect evidence: Exhibit P-007 contains a conversation in which the Defendant responds to the affirmative in response to the question "the money you got by cashing out your chips?". The term "chips" has many meanings in different contexts, such as a type of fried potato, thin and flat pieces of wood, and counters used as a token for money in poker and other games. Only one makes sense in the context of the broader conversation depicted in Exhibits P-007 through P-010: "chips" refers to the sorts of items used as tokens of value in a gaming or gambling context.

This reading is reinforced by previous rulings. The Federal Court has previously noted that certain dye may be used as a banknote (YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, Findings of Fact, No. 2, "In the auction thread, Dearev posted an image of 'GlobalCenter's bank acc' displaying various dyes. Expert witness AsexualDinosaur identified these dyes as DNB banknotes valued at approximately $177,400," internal references omitted).

The Court draws an inference, on balance of probabilities, that the "Kukki's" in "Kukki's 500$" refers to Plaintiff, KukkiNekko. The name of the item being "Kukki's 500$", on first glance, would suggest to an observer that the item is a store of value of $500 that KukkiNekko would be in some way obligated to pay. These were gaming chips of some sort, and the Court concludes on balance of probabilities that KukkiNekko ran a gaming institution that used chips as a store of value.

The Defense admits to having created the tokens (Answer, Section I(1)). These tokens, thus, were not legitimate debt obligations created by the Plaintiff. Instead, this Court concludes that the chips were deliberate counterfeits.

II.C Plaintiff paid the Defendant $14,000 for the 28 counterfeit tokens​

The Plaintiff alleges in their complaint that "The Plaintiff took the fraudulent tokens thinking they were real and paid the Defendant $14,000" (Compl., Factual Allegation No. 3). The Court identifies that Plaintiff provided evidence of two payments by Plaintiff to a certain "Christophern Blackwood" (Compl., Exhibits P-003 and P-004).

The defense, in its Answer to Complaint, chose to "deny that Plaintiff paid $14,000 to Defendant" (Answer, Section I(3)). This denial continued in the defense's opening statement (Defense Opening Statement, "those payments were not made to the Defendant. The money went to Christophern Blackwood, not Zombie_Bro_"), in a subsequent motion to dismiss (Post No. 39, "The payments shown were made to a third party, not the Defendant"). In closing, however, the Defense stated that "[t]he Defendant suggested the chestshop malfunctioned[,] not that the tokens were authentic" (Defense Closing Statement).

This Court has already found that "Christophern Blackwood", "Zombian Blackwood", and the Defendant are the same person (see: Section II.A). Applying that finding here, Exhibits P-003 and P-004 demonstrate a transfer of $14,000 from the Plaintiff to the Defendant. In the context of the conversation depicted in Exhibit P-006, the District Court concludes that the payment of $14,000 was made by Plaintiff to Defendant when "cashing out [Defendant's] chips".

Drawing this all together, the Court concludes on balance of probabilities that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant $14,000 in exchange for Defendant's 28 counterfeit tokens.

II.D Defendant intentionally deceived the Plaintiff, causing the Plaintiff's losses​

What was the Defense's response to this? The defense later admitted that "[t]he Defendant suggested the chestshop malfunctioned" while maintaining that the Defendant did not suggest "that the tokens were authentic" (Defense Closing Statement).

This is a distinction without a difference. Defendant knew that the tokens Defendant had created were not authentic tokens, having made them himself (Answer, Section I(1)). "The Defendant suggested the chestshop malfunctioned" (Defense Closing Statement). More specifically, Exhibit P-006 shows that the Plaintiff says "sell em upstairs pls" and Defendant responds, "its bugged". That is not mere silence, but active deception. It offers a purported explanation for why an ordinary shop process is supposedly not working, even when the Defendant would reasonably have known that a sell shop not accepting counterfeit tokens is not actually a bug.

This is strong evidence of reliance because it explains why "[t]he Plaintiff chose manual redemption" (Defense Closing Statement); the Court concludes on balance of probabilities that but for Defendant's deception of the Plaintiff, manual redemption would not have occurred.

Separately, the Defendant appears to have admitted to scamming the Plaintiff after the fact, responding "fr" (i.e. "for real", an affirmative indicator) to the comment "it was a creative scam to be fair" (Post No. 18, Exhibits P-007), and told the Plaintiff that "your money is gone btw" (id., Exhibit P-010). Both also tacitly demonstrate both the harm to Plaintiff and Defendant’s intent.

III. Opinion of the Court​

"This Court deals with actionable harms borne of a legal fault" (Maxib02 v. NovaKerbal [2026] DCR 11, Post No. 115, Order of Dismissal). We thus now turn to identifying the applicable law for the underlying claim(s) and applying the findings of fact thereto.

III.A This case permissibly seeks civil damages arising from Defendant's alleged fraud​

This case has a single claim for relief listed: fraud, under the Criminal Code Act. As "the law at the time of the alleged breach of law is the applicable law" (Commonwealth of Redmont Vs CHUD.Inc [2026] FCR 19, Verdict, Section III.1.A), and the alleged breach of law occurred prior to the filing of this case, we must examine the Criminal Code Act as it was before the passage of the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act.

From the time of the CCA's passage until the entry of the RCCAA into force, the CCA noted that "in civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed" (CCA, Part 1, Section 6(1)(a); see RCCAA, Part 2, Section 1 for amending act). As such, this Court needn't construe Plaintiff as prosecuting a criminal case (see also: YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, Section V.E, Par. 1, acknowledging a distinction between criminal liability and civil tort liability arising from allegations of a crime; The_Donuticus v. GER, as an Organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18, Opinion of the Court, "civil court should be seen as a party seeking compensation as a result of actions done, whether that be from criminal statute or extraneous circumstances"). Defendant's proffered defense that "Fraud, as defined in the Criminal Code Act, is an indictable offence and may only be pursued in Court by the Department of Justice" (Answer, Section II(6)) does not shield defendant from civil liability here.

Plaintiff, as such, has sued Defendant for a sufficiently pleaded civil tort then-available under the Criminal Code Act.

III.B Each element of the four-part test for fraud is met in this case​

Having established that this is a civil case brought for alleged violations of a crime, not a criminal prosecution, the Court then turns to examine the alleged unlawful actions that would give rise to the civil tort. Since the first passage of the CCA, the crime of fraud has been held as follows:

7 - Fraud
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 100 Penalty Units; up to 10 min[utes] imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) knowingly or recklessly misrepresents or omits a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm.
Relevant Law: Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act

Click to expand...

Prior to the CCA, the Federal Court had assessed the law as requiring a three-step test (MegaMinerM v. Blazora Corporation [2025] FCR 27, Verdict, Section III(D)). The Criminal Code Act, however, changed the definition of fraud from that which was present in the Commercial Standards Act prior to its passage (see: Redundant Offenses Removal Act for the text of the fraud statute prior to its removal from law). The District Court, upon examination of Fraud under the CCA, finds fraud to be broken into a four-part test:

1. A person misrepresents or omits a material fact;
2. The person's misrepresentation or omission was done knowingly or recklessly;
3. Another party relied on that person's misrepresentation (or omission);
4. That other party is actually harmed in a quantifiable manner as a result of the person's omission or misrepresentation.

In this case, each part of the test is met:

1. Defendant created lime dye with a custom name of "Kukki's 500$", signed the dye himself, and expressly said "its bugged" after being told to sell upstairs (Section II.A; Section II.B). That the machines did not accept counterfeit tokens was plainly not a bug; this, combined with the design of the counterfeit token, makes clear that Defendant engaged in misrepresentation. (Whether these tokens were for a casino, or merely for some other sort of gaming institution, is immaterial; what matters is that the Defendant falsely represented the authenticity of the token and/or the working of the token cashing machines.)
2. Defendant plainly knew that Defendant created the counterfeit tokens and that Defendant was misrepresenting facts regarding the status of the Plaintiff's chip-cashing machine (Section II.B). The Defendant's creation of counterfeit tokens bearing the Plaintiff's name and the affirmative statement that "its bugged" demonstrate that the Defendant acted knowingly, satisfying the statute's "knowingly or recklessly" mens rea requirement.
3. Plaintiff paid $14,000 for 28 counterfeit gaming chips (Section II.C). This manual redemption occurred only after Defendant stated that the machines were "bugged" (Section II.D), indicating that Plaintiff did rely upon the Defendant's misrepresentation before manually redeeming the counterfeit tokens as if they were legitimate ones.
4. Defendant received $14,000 from the Plaintiff (Section II.C) and later tacitly admitted both to scamming the Plaintiff and to knowledge that these funds had disappeared (Section II.D). Plaintiff's loss of $14,000 from redeeming counterfeit tokens is quantifiable harm.

As such, on balance of probabilities, this Court comes to the conclusion that Defendant committed fraud against the Plaintiff as defined in the Criminal Code Act. Defendant is thus liable for the damages that resulted.

(This is not a criminal conviction, but a finding of law in the context of this civil trial.)

IV. Damages​

Having established that Defendant is liable for defrauding the Plaintiff, we turn to examining the Plaintiff's prayers for relief. As noted prior, "the law at the time of the alleged breach of law is the applicable law" (Commonwealth of Redmont Vs CHUD.Inc [2026] FCR 19, Verdict, Section III.1.A); the Court thus evaluates damages under the Legal Damages Act, which was in force at all times relevant to the fraud itself.

IV.A Compensatory damages are warranted in full.​

On its face, compensatory damages appear easy. Plaintiff proved a pecuniary loss of $14,000 (Section III.B), and it seems obvious that the Court would award this.

IV.A.1 Defense has failed to establish the necessary basis for diminution of compensatory damages​

On closing, the Defense argued that, as far as pecuniary loss goes, "The Plaintiff shares responsibility. \ A casino operator accepting high-value tokens bears duty of care. The Plaintiff failed to authenticate. The Plaintiff failed to inspect. The Plaintiff now seeks to externalize every consequence of that failure onto the Defendant." Defense thus argues that the compensatory award should be diminished.

This does not come out of nowhere. Under Legal Damages Act, which was in effect at the time of the fraud, awards may be diminished under certain circumstances: breaches of a Duty to Mitigate or commission of contributory negligence.

The Duty to Mitigate is "A party’s obligation to make reasonable efforts to limit the harm they suffer from another party’s actions" (Legal Damages Act, Section 4(3)(a)). The Defendant points out that "The Defendant's tokens bore clear markings: 'Autograph by Zombie_Bro.' This was visible, unhidden, and discoverable through basic inspection. The Plaintiff, an experienced business operator, accepted the tokens and initiated payment without verification" (Defense Closing Statement). This Court agrees in part; a thorough inspection of the tokens would have revealed the signature by Zombie_Bro_, and would have given the Plaintiff sufficient knowledge to have not been harmed. But this Court does not agree in full; the Plaintiff, upon examining the name of the tokens, would reasonably have been confused as to the facts of the matter. The item was titled as a casino token—"Kukki’s 500$"— and even if the lore line "Autograph by Zombie_Bro_" might have revealed something was off on close inspection, the Court does not find that the Plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to limit the harm suffered.

Contributory negligence occurs when a Plaintiff commits "conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for their own protection, and which is a legally contributing cause co-operating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiff's harm" (Legal Damages Act, Section 4(3)(b)). Fraud, however, is not a crime of negligence; Plaintiff did not co-operate with "the negligence of the defendant", but was a victim of an intentional action. As such, contributory negligence does not apply.

IV.A.2 Full compensatory damages are warranted​

Absent diminution of the compensatory award, this Court adjudges that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff in the amount of $14,000 in compensatory damages, equal to the Plaintiff's pecuniary loss.

IV.B Punitive Damages are warranted.​

The Legal Damages Act authorizes punitive damages for a Defendant's "outrageous conduct" (Legal Damages Act, Section 5(1)(a)), in order "to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future" (ibid.). This conduct qualifies. Defendant created the false item, faked a technical issue, triggered payout, and afterward treated the matter as a successful scam whose proceeds were gone. That is precisely the sort of deliberate and dishonest conduct punitive damages are meant to punish and deter.

While prior cases involving straight financial fraud have reached as high as treble damages (Lucaaasserole v. Naezaratheus et al. [2025] FCR 50), this case warrants less. The Court finds the $13,000 suggested by the Plaintiff to be somewhat high in light of the relative malice and need for deterrence of fraudulent behavior of this sort. The Court thus grants the punitive damages in part; Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000 in punitive damages.

IV.C Legal fees are owed to the Plaintiff's counsel.​

Under the Legal Damages Act, "In cases that reach a verdict, legal fees are awarded to the legal representative of the prevailing party at a rate of 30% of the total value of the case" (Legal Damages Act, Section 9(2)(c)), with exceptions for cases where a presiding judicial officer might seek to diminish fees based on lawyer competency and conduct in-case.

Even though legal fees were not included in the prayer for relief, "Legal fees do not necessitate inclusion in a prayer for relief or a countersuit to be awarded" (Legal Damages Act, Section 9(2)(a)). As such, this Court sees no reason to diminish legal fees, and awards the Plaintiff's counsel the full 30%.

This 30% is "measured against the actual recovery" (YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, Order of the Court, Section VI, Par. 2). Because this Court has awarded a total of $24,000 in damages between compensatory and punitive damages, the Defendant is liable to Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of 30% of that amount, which comes out to $7,200 in legal fees.

V. Order of the Court​

In light of the above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendant Zombie_Bro_ is liable to Plaintiff KukkiNekko in the amount of $24,000.
2. Defendant Zombie_Bro_ is liable to AboundedComet, Plaintiff's legal representative, in the amount of $7,200.

So Ordered,
Hon. Judge Multiman155