Cryptocurrency has moved from a niche digital concept to a significant asset class, but its legal treatment, especially in common law jurisdictions like Hong Kong and the UK, remains complex. This article explores the nature of cryptocurrencies as property, the legal remedies available for related claims, and the critical role of valuation in disputes.
Defining Cryptocurrencies and Their Legal Status
Cryptocurrencies are not monolithic; they come in several forms, each with distinct characteristics:
- Native Coins: Digital assets native to their blockchain, like Bitcoin (BTC) or Ethereum (ETH), which operate on their own distributed networks.
- Tokenized Assets: Cryptocurrencies that run on another tradable platform, allowing holders to exchange them for native coins.
- Stablecoins: Cryptocurrencies pegged to the value of a traditional asset, such as the US dollar or gold. Tether (USDT) is a prime example, where each token is theoretically backed by one US dollar in reserves.
- Wrapped Tokens: Also known as wrapped assets, these are digital assets backed by a locked original asset on another blockchain, giving them the value of the collateral. They are similar to stablecoins but are pegged to other crypto assets instead of traditional ones, like Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC).
Common law jurisdictions have widely accepted that cryptocurrency constitutes a form of property. For instance, the Hong Kong court in Re Gatecoin Limited found that cryptocurrency meets the classic definition of property: it is definable, identifiable by third parties, and possesses a degree of permanence. However, a consensus on its precise classification remains elusive.
Critically, most countries, including Hong Kong, do not recognize cryptocurrencies as legal tender or money. Under Hong Kong’s Legal Tender Notes Issue Ordinance, crypto is not official currency. This distinction has a profound impact on the types of legal remedies available to claimants.
Available Remedies in Cryptocurrency Disputes
Since cryptocurrency is generally not considered "money," a creditor in a crypto loan arrangement faces a specific challenge. A debt claim must be for a liquidated sum of money. Therefore, any "payment" in a crypto arrangement is considered a matter of delivery. A plaintiff can only bring a claim for breach of contract for non-delivery of the crypto asset, not a claim for a debt.
The standard remedy for a breach of contract claim is compensatory damages—a monetary award intended to place the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the contract been fulfilled.
Courts also have the discretionary power to issue a specific performance order, compelling the defendant to fulfill their contractual obligation. However, this is not granted automatically. Specific performance is typically only considered when:
(i) Damages are an inadequate remedy, and
(ii) Enforcement would not cause undue hardship to the defendant.
This rule has an exception for unique property without a market substitute, such as land.
Given the extreme volatility of cryptocurrency markets, plaintiffs often face a dilemma: when prices rise, they prefer an order for specific performance to receive the appreciated asset, but when prices fall, they would rather seek monetary damages. Recent case law shows that obtaining specific performance is challenging.
In the Singapore case of B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd, the court found the defendant crypto exchange liable for breach of contract and breach of trust. However, it rejected the plaintiff’s argument for specific performance, stating that the difficulty in assessing damages due to volatility was not a sufficient reason. The court also noted that forcing the defendant to buy BTC at a price much higher than the违约日价格 would cause undue hardship.
A similar approach was taken in the English case of Oliver Southgate v Adam Graham. The court did not rule out specific performance in an "appropriate case" but refused it here. It concluded that an order for specific performance would cause hardship to the defendant and importantly stated that "a contract for the transfer of cryptocurrency is not… unique merely by reason of the nature of the asset involved."
👉 Explore more on asset recovery strategies
The Critical Role of Valuation
Since plaintiffs cannot bring a debt claim for cryptocurrency and courts are hesitant to order specific performance, accurate valuation becomes paramount in assessing damages for breach of contract. Two key details require careful attention: the valuation date and the valuation method.
Valuation Date
Due to extreme market volatility, the chosen valuation date can dramatically impact the compensation amount. The default starting point for assessing loss is the date of breach (the "breach date rule"). However, courts can and do use other dates.
The Southgate v Graham case illustrates this perfectly. The parties had an oral agreement where the plaintiff transferred 144 ETH (worth £50,000 at the time in June 2018) to the defendant, who agreed to repay the equivalent sum plus a 10% premium, either in cash or ETH. The defendant defaulted on repaying 115.69 ETH.
The trial judge ruled that the defendant breached the contract on October 1, 2019, and ordered damages to be assessed based on the ETH price on that date. However, the price on the breach date had crashed and was far lower than the price at the time of the original transfer. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the valuation date should be the date of the court's judgment, which would likely result in a higher award, reflecting a more recent market price.
Valuation Methodology
Beyond the date, the method of calculating the value is equally crucial. Courts must determine the appropriate market rate to use, especially for assets traded on multiple exchanges with potentially varying prices. The goal is to arrive at a fair market value that truly compensates the claimant for their loss.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the legal status of cryptocurrency in Hong Kong?
Cryptocurrency is recognized as property under Hong Kong law, as established in the Re Gatecoin Limited case. It meets the classic definition of property by being definable, identifiable, and possessing permanence. However, it is not considered legal tender or official money.
Why can't I sue for a debt if someone doesn't return my loaned Bitcoin?
A debt claim requires a sum of money to be paid. Since cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are not recognized as "money" in most jurisdictions, the claim transforms into a breach of contract claim for failure to deliver the specific asset (the Bitcoin), not failure to pay a debt.
When can a court order specific performance for a crypto transaction?
Courts will only use their discretion to order specific performance if monetary damages are an inadequate remedy and if enforcing the order does not cause undue hardship to the defendant. Recent cases show courts are reluctant to do this for crypto due to its volatility and the potential hardship of forcing a party to buy assets at potentially inflated prices.
What was the key finding in the Southgate v Graham case?
The English court refused to order specific performance for the transfer of ETH, stating that a cryptocurrency transfer agreement is not unique simply because of the asset's nature. It upheld the breach date rule for valuation but acknowledged that other dates could be used, highlighting the discretion courts have.
How is the value of cryptocurrency determined in a legal dispute?
Valuation involves two main factors: the appropriate date (often the breach date, but not always) and the methodology for determining a fair market value. The extreme volatility of crypto markets makes choosing the correct valuation date critically important to the outcome of a case.
Are stablecoins treated differently under the law?
While stablecoins are designed to maintain a stable value, their fundamental legal characterization still hinges on whether they are deemed property or money. The same principles regarding claims for delivery (breach of contract) versus debt likely apply, though their stable nature could influence a court's view on the adequacy of damages as a remedy.