- Home
- News & insights
- Insights
- Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it
- On this page
7 April 2022
Disputes Quick Read – 99 of 99 Insights
Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it
- Briefing
If your business involves dealing in cryptocurrencies, you should be aware that if the legal status of a transaction is not clearly agreed, a counter party may claim that you hold those digital assets on trust for them.
This is a particular risk for cryptocurrencies that are rising in value as a counter party may seek to assert a proprietary claim (ie a right to beneficial ownership over the asset or their traceable proceeds) which may end up being higher in value than the consideration agreed under the contract. You should therefore ensure that you have a clearly drafted agreement for the nature of the transaction -ie, whether is it a loan, a sale and buy-back, a trust arrangement, or something else.
This issue arose in the recent case of Wang v Darby. The court had to determine the proper legal characterisation of two transactions between the parties - Mr Wang and Mr Darby - involving Tezos and Bitcoin. Mr Wang sought to argue that the transactions had given rise to a trust, entitling Mr Wang to a proprietary claim rather than just a personal one. Mr Darby on the other hand argued that the transactions were for the sale and buy-back of the cryptocurrency.
On an application brought by Mr Darby for Mr Wang's claim to be struck out and/or for the court to enter reverse summary judgment, the court held that while it was possible under English law for digital assets such as Tezos to be subject to an English law trust, no trust had been created under this transaction.
The transactions
There was no formal contract entered into between the parties. The relevant contracts had been formed via the parties' discussion on Telegram. The key terms were as follows:
- Under the First Contract, concluded in December 2018, Mr Wang transferred a parcel of 200,000 Tezos to Mr Darby in return for 13 Bitcoins.
- Under the Second Contract, concluded in January 2019, Mr Wang transferred a parcel of 200,000 Tezos to Mr Darby in return for 17 Bitcoins.
- After a period of two years, Mr Wang would buy-back the 400,000 Tezos from Mr Darby at an agreed price in US dollars, or the price of US$ 110,000, or the Bitcoin equivalent.
- During the two-year period, Mr Darby would use the Tezos for baking and/or stake bonding and Mr Wang would receive a share of the rewards or profits made by Mr Darby.
The court’s finding
Following a disagreement between the parties, Mr Wang issued a formal demand for the return of his 400,000 Tezos. Mr Darby failed to return the Tezos, which gave to rise to these proceedings. Mr Wang's case was that the 400,000 Tezos, and/or their traceable proceeds, were held by Mr Darby on trust for him.
The court held that no trust had been created under English law because the contracts between the parties involved essential reciprocity; ie, in order for Mr Wang to become entitled to the return of the 400,000 Tezos, he had to return corresponding value in (or equivalent to) Bitcoins to Mr Darby. This transactional element was inimical to the concept of a trust.
And it was common ground between the parties that the transaction involved a sale of the Tezos to Mr Darby, which Mr Wang could repurchase on restoring the value to Mr Darby of the Bitcoins. Each sale/purchase in the transactions between the parties involved a transfer of ownership – which precluded the existence of a trust.
This is a different legal scenario to that reached of the High Court of New Zealand in Ruscoe & another v Cryptopia Limited (in Liquidation) [2020], in which the court held that a cryptocurrency trading exchange, known as Cryptopia, held the digital assets of its customers on express trust. In that case, the account holders (ie the beneficiaries) were held to have deposited, traded and owned their own cryptocurrency in return for certain fees.
Takeaways
- This case is a helpful reminder that cryptocurrencies can constitute property under English law and can therefore also be the subject of a trust.
- Whether a trust arises in a particular transaction will depend on the objective common intention of the parties. The court is entitled to discern the parties' objective intentions from their pleaded cases as well as the evidence before the court.
- Here, the court considered the transactional language used by the parties to be consistent with a sale and buy back transaction. The fact that they had also at times used proprietary or possessory language such as "my" or "yours" when referring to the digital assets was not enough to create a trust.
- The court forewarned that the language used by the parties when transacting will not on its own be determinative of the legal characteristics of the transaction, particularly where, as was the case here, the parties agreed the transaction informally via Telegram without legal advice.
- To avoid the risk of a trust being created unintentionally, you should however ensure that you communicate clearly with counterparties about the terms and legal effect of transactions involving crypto assets. If it is not your intention to create a trust this should be expressed clearly in writing.
In this series
Changes to the privilege rules between companies and shareholders
6 December 2024
Victory for energy companies/defeat for the environment?
14 November 2024
Failure to prevent fraud offence to come into force in September 2025
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
Essex Cricket Club charged by Cricket Regulator
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
UK introduces mandatory reimbursement rules to combat APP fraud
15 October 2024
New SFO Director announces bold plans to tackle fraud
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
First of its kind judicial guidance on the use of AI in the courts
14 December 2023
Witness familiarisation - does it affect the court's assessment of witness credibility?
13 December 2023
The use of AI in Trial Witness Statements post-PD 57AC
23 October 2023
by Multiple authors
CAT to hear the first application for a collective settlement approval order
17 October 2023
Pre-Action Protocols – what is different?
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
The Law Commission's Consultation Process on the Arbitration Act 1996 – taking stock
21 July 2023
What does the latest decision of the CAT in the Mastercard/Visa proceedings mean for class actions?
10 July 2023
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read – developments in the fixed costs regime
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Service by email – are the rules any clearer?
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read - What do practitioners think about making alternative dispute resolution (ADR) compulsory?
8 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: What are the litigation trends for 2023?
2 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: further guidance on witness statement preparation rules
14 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A cautionary tale – settlement agreement (un)wittingly releases all claims for fraud
13 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: Why the UK should join the Hague Judgments Convention 2019
8 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: extensive information orders granted against crypto exchanges following hack
19 January 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A new approach to giving evidence? WhatsApp with that?
3 October 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Ethereum Merge - what legal issues arise?
22 September 2022
by Ben Jones, Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure - What information can be redacted?
25 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: what claims exist when a smart contract is breached?
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Defining the duty - the limits of the responsibility assumed by professionals
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – successful challenge to government's Net Zero Strategy
29 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 – now in force
17 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: an important reminder of the duty to disclose electronic documents in native format
13 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ENRC prevails in claim against former solicitor
26 May 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation update – McGaughey v Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
Don't lose your keys: Bitcoin developers do not have a duty to assist owners in recovering lost cryptocurrency
4 April 2022
Disputes Quick Read: The new witness statement preparation rules – a year on
5 April 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth v Shell – climate change litigation shifts focus to UK companies
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court rules that failure to provide adequate data security is not a positive act
21 September 2021
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: Key changes to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme
13 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Bill – unpacking the UK government's proposed amendments
6 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Will litigants be compelled to participate in alternative dispute resolution?
2 August 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Freezing injunctions – maximum custodial sentence imposed for breach
21 July 2021
Disputes Quick Read: The online future of civil justice – the end of the legal profession or the end of legal drudgery?
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
Disputes Quick Read: Will the courts change forever post-COVID?
26 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: One Blackfriars administrators cleared of misfeasance
5 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Not your prerogative – the Independent Review of Administrative Law reports its recommendations on judicial review
21 April 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Amendments to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – a step in the right direction
31 March 2021
Disputes Quick Read: UK Supreme Court rules on the territorial extent of the SFO's powers
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: No dropping anchor – parent company liability for environmental claims
24 February 2021
Disputes Quick Read: What lawyers need to know about new witness statement preparation rules
20 January 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Should you still choose the English courts to have jurisdiction in your international contracts after Brexit?
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: Privilege lost in the EU post-Brexit (with exceptions)
23 November 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Law on interest applicable to US dollar awards reaffirmed
16 October 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices
23 September 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Why the modernised LCIA rules are a welcome update
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
Disputes Quick Read: COVID-19 and supply chain disruption – key issues
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court orders parties to explore options for 5-week remote trial
15 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms
27 April 2020
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: UK's OFSI fines Standard Chartered Bank £20 million for sanctions breaches
21 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: A different approach to witness evidence
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Coronavirus - a growth in virtual courts?
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
Disputes quick read: climate change activism by litigation
26 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift
21 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Court stays evictions during COVID-19 – is this lawful?
2 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Will the civil justice system change forever post COVID-19?
16 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Retailers reign supreme in Visa and Mastercard proceedings
9 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: The contra proferentem rule reconsidered?
21 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Scope of duty and the SAAMCo counterfactual following Manchester Building Society
3 December 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Facilitating transactions in cryptoassets - Lord Leggatt and the point of commercial law
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Privy Council clarifies the law on freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings
8 October 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – what's the latest?
10 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Court decisions on the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – the 2021 roundup
20 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Assumption of responsibility - tax schemes and investors
22 March 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it
7 April 2022
Related Insights
Don't lose your keys: Bitcoin developers do not have a duty to assist owners in recovering lost cryptocurrency
by Emma Allen and Samantha Brendish
Cryptoasset fraud: Squid coin rug-pull and tracing cryptoassets
by Emma Allen and Georgina Jones