To freeze or not to freeze – cryptocurrency as property? By Danielle Carr, Partner, Rosenblatt
10th January 2020
In granting freezing orders to prevent the disposal of Bitcoin and Ethereum, Mr Justice Birss: i) found a real risk of dissipation where responsive evidence appeared to have been altered or simply failed to prove the asset was still held, and ii) was prepared to proceed on the basis that cryptocurrency could be a form of property, and accordingly the proprietary order should prevent the disposal of it. This 2018 judgment (only recently available, and reported by LexisNexis®) aptly demonstrates the court’s approach to technical evidence, application of legal principles in increasingly sophisticated contexts and willingness to treat cryptocurrency as property (albeit that this significant point of interest did not appear to have been in issue). See the full article, attached.
Danielle Carr is on LexisPSL’s Expert Panel of case analysis authors. The attached article was first published by Lexis®PSL on 06/01/2020.
This article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you would like any further information, please contact Danielle Carr by email at firstname.lastname@example.org or by telephone on 02079550880.