Cryptoassets in Private Law: Emerging Trends and Open Questions from the First 10 Years

Allen, Jason; Wells, Henry W.; Mauer, Marco

doi:10.2139/ssrn.4206250

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the purposes of context, it should be noted that in a previous decision by the same Court in Fetch.ai Ltd and another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others, the Court departed from the reasoning proposed by the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce ("UKJT")'s Legal Statement (2019), and held that crypto-assets could be considered as choses in action. This is contrasted with the position taken in AA v Persons Unknown, which endorses the UKJT Legal Statement, and is argued to be the preferred position [3].…”

Section: The Uk's Third Category Of Personal Propertymentioning

confidence: 65%

“…However, it is noted that "the law of England and Wales is highly flexible," allowing for incremental developments. In the case of Osbourne v. Persons Unknown and Ozone Networks t/a Opensea, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit stating that NFTs were stolen from her digital wallet [3]. Judge Pelling held that there was "at least a realistically arguable case that [NFTs] are to be treated as property as a matter of English law."…”

Section: The Uk's Third Category Of Personal Propertymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The New Zealand High Court examined the same issue in the case of Ruscoe v. Cryptopia Ltd, in which the Court quoted the Legal Statement made by the UKJT (2019), finding that crypto-assets were "a species of "intangible personal property" and "clearly an identifiable thing of value […] capable of being the subject matter of a trust"" [3]. In its decision, the Court also quoted the Canadian case of Shair.com Global Digital Services Ltd v Arnold, which held that crypto-assets can be considered as property for the purposes of a proprietary freezing order [3].…”

Section: Commonwealth Jurisdictions' Interpretation Of Digital Propertymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Non-Fungible Tokens an Argument for the Ownership of Digital Property?

Alessandro

2023

IJLCW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper examines the concept of ownership and its potential application to digital assets, particularly Non-Fungible Tokens (“NFTs”). Technological advancements which allow the creation, storage, and sale of unique digital assets in a purely digital manner have raised many questions about the concept of ‘digital ownership’. However, the legal frameworks regulating the ownership, sale, and legal classification of digital assets have not evolved at the same paceas technology. This leads to legal uncertainty in the digital landscape, and weakened protection for the users of this technology, particularly in the European Union (“EU”). Although the concept of digital property has been discussed theoretically, practical recommendations for the implementation of this concept are still scarce. This paper discusses the concept of digital property after providing a contextual understanding of NFTs and the technology behind them. Finally, the author offersrecommendations for a harmonised EU-level framework for the legal classification of NFTs, and for the concept of digital property.

show abstract

Section: The Uk's Third Category Of Personal Propertymentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: The Uk's Third Category Of Personal Propertymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Commonwealth Jurisdictions' Interpretation Of Digital Propertymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Non-Fungible Tokens an Argument for the Ownership of Digital Property?

Alessandro

2023

IJLCW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In comparison, security tokens operate similarly to conventional financial securities by representing ownership stakes in tangible assets. Therefore, these tokens offer investors a novel means of investing (Allen et al 2022;Ariesmansyah 2022). Crypto-assets have ushered in a new era for finance, with both exciting prospects and daunting challenges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crypto-asset regulatory landscape: a comparative analysis of the crypto-asset regulation in the UK and Germany

Wronka

2024

J Asset Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research paper is to compare and analyse how crypto-assets are regulated in the UK and Germany. The aim is to understand and highlight the approaches taken by these two countries in terms of regulating crypto-assets and to explore the potential impact that their regulatory frameworks could have on the market for these crypto-assets. The research employs a doctrinal research design to examine the crypto-asset regulatory regimes in the UK and Germany. A comprehensive review of existing literature, official regulatory documents and relevant legal frameworks is conducted to understand the core components of each country's crypto-asset regulations. The findings of this study reveal divergences in the regulatory approaches of the UK and Germany towards crypto-assets. While the UK has embraced a principles-based regulatory framework, fostering innovation and industry growth, Germany has adopted a more prescriptive and cautious approach, focusing on investor protection and market stability. The research identifies that the UK's flexible approach has attracted a flourishing crypto-asset ecosystem, while Germany's conservative stance has offered greater investor confidence. However, certain regulatory gaps and challenges persist in both jurisdictions, such as ambiguities in classification and tax treatment, requiring further attention.

show abstract

“…Determination of the criteria for bankruptcy assets in the Bankruptcy Law adheres to the principle of integration, which means that the debtor's assets that can be registered as bankrupt assets refer to other laws and regulations that apply in Indonesia (Elyta, 2018; Allen et al, 2022). Article 1131 of the Civil Code, which essentially regulates general guarantees, explains that all movable and immovable objects belonging to the debtor, both existing and future, are collateral for the debtor's individual agreements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of Bankruptcy Assets in the Form of Non-Fungible Token (NFT) by the Curator Based on Indonesian Bankruptcy Law

Hariyanto

2023

IJSOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research is a normative juridical study of non-fungible token (NFT) regarding the position of NFT in relation to positive law in Indonesia, legal certainty for bankrupt assets in the form of NFT and the efforts that can be made by curators in order to optimize bankruptcy assets in the form of NFT. The results of this study indicate that NFT has met the classification of immovable and indivisible movable objects. The provisions of Article 21, Article 98 and 101 Paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Law have provided legal certainty to curators and bankrupt creditors that NFT is a bankrupt asset that must be optimized by the curator to pay off the debts of debtors. There are 3 main obstacles by the curator in optimizing bankrupt assets in the form of NFT, in the process of registering NFT as bankrupt assets, the process of determining the best time to sell NFT and the method of selling NFT based on the Bankruptcy Law. Against these obstacles, the Bankruptcy Law and positive law have provided efforts that can be taken by curators in the context of optimizing bankrupt assets.

show abstract

Cryptoassets in Private Law: Emerging Trends and Open Questions from the First 10 Years

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Non-Fungible Tokens an Argument for the Ownership of Digital Property?

Non-Fungible Tokens an Argument for the Ownership of Digital Property?

Crypto-asset regulatory landscape: a comparative analysis of the crypto-asset regulation in the UK and Germany

Optimization of Bankruptcy Assets in the Form of Non-Fungible Token (NFT) by the Curator Based on Indonesian Bankruptcy Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About